Sitting of 4 February 2002

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

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What plans he has to increase the funding of grants for the extension of CCTV schemes. [29846]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Six hundred and seventy-one CCTV schemes have been funded at a cost of about £170 million under the crime reduction programme. Opportunities for funding CCTV schemes exist under the communities against drugs and the small retailers in deprived areas initiatives.
    Mr. Hoyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Will he find extra funding for the successful schemes in Chorley in the town's fight against crime? Will he also ensure that grants will be available for community wardens in the Chorley scheme?
    Mr. Denham: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's strong support for crime reduction measures in Chorley. Funds are available— including communities against drugs money— that could be used on a variety of means to tackle crime and disorder. We shall announce further arrangements for funding crime reduction in the near future.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The death of a fine young man, Tim Robinson, in a stabbing incident while he was parking his car in London has caused great grief in the village of Beaulieu in my constituency, where he was brought up and where his parents still live. It seems likely that CCTV will play a vital role in the apprehension of his killers, but does the Minister agree that, were it not for the stop and search restrictions that have resulted from the constant accusations of racism against the police, it would be possible to deter a considerable number of would-be criminals from casually carrying knives when they go about their evil work?
    Mr. Denham: All hon. Members will agree that the crime to which the hon. Gentleman referred was appalling and that it is essential that we take the firmest possible
    588
    action to stamp out such crime. The House will be aware of the moves announced by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which, from today, will lead to about 475 extra officers being deployed in London to tackle street robbery. It is essential that that be done.
    However, I do not agree that restrictions have been placed on stop and search. Powers to stop and to search are an essential part of effective policing and we are determined to ensure that that can continue, but in ways that maintain the confidence of all the communities that are being policed.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: A few years ago in my constituency, a taxi driver died as a result of a fracas in a private-hire taxi. Bolton is the first local authority to install miniature CCTV cameras on the windscreens of black cabs and private-hire vehicles. That successful experiment has been made permanent. The scheme is self-financing in that taxi drivers have to lease the cameras, but the cost is offset by their reduced insurance premiums. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that brave experiment should be spread throughout the country?
    Mr. Denham: I am fascinated to learn of that initiative in Bolton, of which I was not aware. Much extraordinarily good innovative work is going on throughout the country to reduce and fight crime, and we are working as hard as we can to spread best practice. If my hon. Friend will give me further details, I shall make sure that they are posted on the Home Office website, so that people in all parts of the country can study them and learn from that success.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: More cameras are welcome, but does the Minister agree that they should be a complement to, not a substitute for, more police resources in front-line area policing and more regular patrolling?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Wherever I have been, the police welcome CCTV as a tool to help them in the fight against crime, but of course we need more police officers. That is why, this spring, we shall have a record number of police officers in England and Wales, and in spring 2003 there will be more than 130,000. It is not only a matter of having more officers, but of making the best use of their time. That is why we set up a taskforce, headed by the former chief inspector of police, Sir David O'Dowd, to find ways of cutting red tape and bureaucracy and freeing up police officer time so that officers can be out in the community where the public want to see them.

    Language and Citizenship Education
    Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his plans to offer language and citizenship education to those settling long term in the UK. [29847]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): In a few days, I will be publishing a comprehensive and holistic policy paper on nationality, managed migration and asylum. As part of the programme for integration with diversity and building social cohesion I shall expand on our proposals for English, Welsh or

    589
    Scottish Gaelic to be understood by those seeking citizenship, together with an understanding of society and its institutions.
    Tony Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is fairly self-evident that new citizens who are fluent in English will have a much greater chance of successfully integrating into the community and of getting jobs, and that an understanding of citizenship will lead to new citizens taking a fuller part in the democratic process? But does he further agree that not just new citizens need to have a greater understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship; everyone has a part to play in combating bigotry and prejudice?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is why I am proud to have piloted, as the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the citizenship programme in our schools, which becomes mandatory from September this year, and to have instilled an understanding that, in post-16 and adult education, we need to produce throughout the country not simply an understanding of equality so that we reach out to those who come into our community— important though that is— but an understanding of our institutions so that people can use democracy to bring about peaceful change. If we can achieve that and ensure that that programme is available for those who seek our citizenship, Britain will have a more stable backcloth and foundation to ensure that we overcome racism and bigotry, which are unacceptable in any guise.
    Hywel Williams: Cultural and linguistic diversity are to be greatly valued, so I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the Welsh language, but may I press him to ensure that opportunities to learn Welsh are available not only in the so-called Welsh-speaking areas, but throughout the country?
    Mr. Blunkett: The Assembly is keen to ensure that such opportunities are available in Wales, and I shall certainly talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about Welsh being available in England. That would ensure that people could gain access to jobs more readily if they moved to Wales, which, of course, underlines the reason why it is so important in education, training and employment to have a grasp of the language that is regularly used.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, before we move towards a stronger requirement for a knowledge of English to obtain citizenship, we must ensure that there is adequate teaching of English as a second language in every area where there is a large ethnic community? I visited an English class for mainly Asian women in Bradford a few weeks ago and sat in on interviews with those Asian women. They were all told that they would have to wait 12 months before they could join the class. That is not the case in Keighley, but it certainly is in Bradford.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Such teaching is part of the basic skills agenda. The Secretary of State has asked the Learning and Skills Council to map where facilities are available throughout the country. When I publish the White Paper, we shall
    590
    make it clear that it is no longer acceptable to provide free facilities for the head of the family, but not for the spouse who has come into the country, and we will put that right.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I in no way wish to challenge the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for the Welsh language, or even for Scottish Gaelic, but does he accept that it is of paramount importance that every British subject should be fluent in the English language and that, following on the question asked by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), everything should be done to expedite classes and ensure that he sets himself a target so that, by the end of this decade, all British subjects are fluent in the English language?
    Mr. Blunkett: I should like to set myself a target, but I shall draw breath after the mapping of the facilities. It would be nice to ensure that the indigenous population, as well as those who come into the country, spoke fluent English before the end of the decade. I have been reprimanded, sotto voce, by one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for mispronouncing "Gaelic", for which I apologise.
    Mr. David Lammy: I am grateful to the Government for introducing better citizenship classes for people who are newly arrived in Britain, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of ethnic minority people in this country were born in Britain? What steps is his Department taking, working with the Commission for Racial Equality and the race equality unit, to ensure that younger ethnic minority people in particular can better participate in life in Britain?
    Mr. Blunkett: I believe that that is part of the social cohesion agenda being taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs. That point should be integrated with my hon. Friend's wider point. He is right that most second and third generation migrants speak English as well as anyone else, but the difficulty is that their parents and grandparents often do not have that ability. There is therefore a tension between what happens at home and what happens at school or on the street. That point came out in the Cantle report, which said that people were torn between two different countries, cultures and societies. We need to address that point and not destroy the cultural heritage or diversity that are the ingredients of our country, but help people through those tensions.

    Community Support Officers
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: If he will make a statement on the role of community support officers in reducing the fear of crime. [29848]
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What further resources he plans to allocate to local authorities and community safety partnerships to extend the provision of community wardens. [29852]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Community support officers will be under the command and control of the chief officer and will have limited powers conferred on them. They will be deployed

    591
    in the community, providing a visible policing presence, and will have a vital role to play in support of the police in reducing the fear of crime, increasing public safety and tackling antisocial behaviour.
    More than 450 neighbourhood warden posts have so far been funded by the Government, with a further 700 street warden posts due to come on stream in April this year.
    Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend enlarge on that helpful answer? First, will he commit himself to visiting the fine city of Lancaster to witness the pilot project that is in place there? Traffic wardens have been converted by the constabulary into a potent force to develop community policing and support in the Ridge and Freehold area. Does my right hon. Friend have thoughts on the way in which community support officers can be combined with regeneration opportunities, the Government's employment policies and investment in learning, skills and sporting facilities to provide an integrated package of support for communities to reduce crime and the fear of crime?
    Mr. Denham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the initiative in his local area. It enables me to emphasise once again that the Government's plans for community support officers have been drawn up in close consultation with sections of the police service, and many parts of the police service already want to move ahead on those lines. Clearly, in areas of deprivation, and in areas in need of regeneration, the presence of extra people in the community to tackle low-level antisocial behaviour and to help to deal with issues such as abandoned vehicles and graffiti can help to build the confidence of the community and enable regeneration to take place successfully.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the exemplary community warden scheme in West Lancashire, which has been made possible by the total commitment of West Lancashire district council, by the enthusiastic co-operation of the police and the Home Office, and by public approval? The only complaint about community wardens is that there are not enough of them. Will he encourage such successful schemes by providing extra resources in the near future so as to add to their numbers?
    Mr. Denham: As I said, the number of posts supported by the Government continues to increase, and a further 700 street warden posts are due to be filled in the next few months. Clearly, we shall want to consider the issue in the next spending review. It is also worth stressing that a significant number of street warden posts are being created at a purely local level by registered social landlords and local authorities, who recognise that it is an extraordinarily cost-effective way of dealing with problems in the community that often cost a great deal more if there is an absence of an authority figure in the area.
    Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Liberal Democrats welcome the idea of community support officers with properly defined responsibilities? Will he and the Home Secretary use every opportunity— as the Government are keen to do— to get two messages across? People should know that the result of having additional people to help the police will
    592
    be more fully qualified police on the streets to prevent crimes and catch those who participate in serious crimes against the person. We have seen examples of such crimes in recent weeks, whether robberies of mobile phones, an offence of violence against the person, or car-jacking, an offence of serious threat of violence against the person. Detection rates will increase because we shall catch more people and it will be possible to punish people appropriately. Such people should know that offences against the person are in a different league from offences against property and that they can expect the punishment to be in a different league accordingly.
    Mr. Denham: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support. He is right that the role of community support officers will complement that of the professional police officer. The roles are not to be confused, and one operates in support of the other. One of the main reasons for that is to enable the police to concentrate their time and efforts on the serious crimes that rightly worry the public and on which they wish the bulk of police energy to be directed. It is critical, at the moment, that every effort is made to concentrate resources on persistent offenders who cause the majority of crime so that they are identified, caught, convicted and punished.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: While agreeing that anything that can be done to reduce the fear of crime is important in our society, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what really matters is dealing with violent crime, on which the Government have a dismal record? Is he aware of the serious offences committed in the past few days in central London? What is he going to do to make the lives of people who are under the constant threat of violent street crime easier and more secure?
    Mr. Denham: The public are rightly concerned about the sort of crimes to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is worth remembering that the British crime survey published last autumn showed a significant fall in the public experience of violent crime last year. I am in no way complacent because street robbery is a real concern that has to be tackled. We will do what the previous Government failed to do: we will have more police officers and ensure that those convicted of carrying out such serious crimes receive serious punishment. I welcome, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does, the decision by the commissioner of the Metropolitan police to deploy from today another 475 officers specifically to tackle street robbery.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that excellent community safety partnership schemes can be set back if the local government settlement is not appropriate? That has happened to neighbourhood partnerships in my area because of the effect of negative subsidy on the settlement. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will make it clear to his colleague with responsibility for local government that it is important for every area to have real growth and that we do not lose such valuable schemes because of the small print on local government settlements?
    Mr. Denham: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

    593
    State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. However, I must stress two things. The first is that the Government have provided significant funding for neighbourhood warden and street warden schemes. The second is that many local authorities believe that investment in the schemes is cost effective in terms of the use of their resources. The schemes do not have to dissuade much graffiti or environmental damage for the local authorities to be net gainers from their investments.
    Mr. James Paice: Is it not sadly the reality in many parts of our country that the fear of crime and the crime profile are rising sharply? For example, the tragic incident was mentioned earlier of an innocent person who was murdered on getting out of their car. Is it not also the case that robbery in some London boroughs has doubled in a year? Surely the highest priority should be given to providing a first-rate service of policing our streets, in terms of both numbers and professionalism. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of people's grave concern that that cannot be delivered by using partly trained people with different powers that might vary force by force or even borough to borough? Is it not clear that as our streets become, or at least appear to become, ever more rather than less dangerous—
    Paul Flynn: Not true.
    Mr. Paice: In those circumstances, policing needs to be met by fully trained officers with full powers.
    Anyone who suggests that that is not true should walk down the streets in some London boroughs and find out for themselves. They could even look at the Government's figures that show that street robbery doubled in the past 12 months in four London boroughs.
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman would do better to have a conversation with the Metropolitan police, as it has pioneered, pressed for and indeed persuaded us that the creation of community support officers is a key part of its strategy to police the streets of London effectively. I suggest that before he rubbishes the idea, and if he is concerned about street robbery in London, he should talk to the Metropolitan police.
    As I said, the Metropolitan police is deploying extra officers dedicated to tackling street robbery. Lord Justice Woolf has made clear the importance that should be attached to sentencing those who commit such vicious robbery. We will ensure that they are properly punished and that measures are in place to put those who are detected and caught under proper and effective supervision, because we are determined not to swap party political chitchat across the Chamber but to get a grip on the problem.
    Mr. John McFall: The Minister will agree that we need the confidence of local groups and communities if we are to tackle crime effectively. Too many of them rightly feel that there are insufficient police on the streets. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take the opportunity of the forthcoming Police Reform Bill to ensure that those who wish to serve their communities for
    594
    many years as sergeants and constables are rewarded and peripheral areas are cut, so that more money is put on the street, where it deserves to be?
    Mr. Denham: Yes, by tackling red tape and bureaucracy in the police service we shall free up police time. One key aim behind the policing priority posts, which are part of the heads of agreement with the Police Federation, is to enable people who do the most difficult and demanding policing jobs to be properly rewarded and to be given an incentive to stay in those difficult front-line jobs.

    Asylum
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What steps he is taking to reform the asylum system. [29850]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): As referred to a moment or two ago, in the White Paper that I am about to publish I shall build on the statement that I made on 29 October. I want a radical improvement in the way that we operate our asylum system, including in the immigration and nationality directorate and the national asylum support service, and to set that in the context of a managed migration programme. It is time to see asylum not in isolation but as part of dealing with worldwide movements of people, all of whom are either seeking a better life or fleeing persecution.
    Mr. Streeter: How does the Home Secretary explain his spectacular failure to prevent asylum seekers who are already safe in France from stampeding through the channel tunnel and ferry ports to seek asylum in this country? Is it not obvious to everyone that the Dublin convention is not working? What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Blunkett: As we shall debate in a few moments, the very fact that people are seen scrabbling to get over the barbed-wire shows that they are not flooding into Britain in the way just described. In fact, the number of people who managed to get through the French end of the channel tunnel fell from 808 in July to 32 in December. I do not think that that is a sign of failure; I think that it is a sign of success. If the hon. Gentleman had anything about him, he would stand up and congratulate us on making a difference.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Home Secretary agree that although it is desirable that the number of failed asylum seekers to be deported should be increased, that must he done humanely? Does he particularly agree that we should be taking steps to ensure that some facilities await young children on their arrival back home, and that they are not simply flown to the other side of the world and dumped, with their families, at an airport and wished good luck?
    Mr. Blunkett: A sensible debate would acknowledge that the longer a family has been here and the longer children have been integrated and have been receiving an education, the more difficult it is both to remove and to resettle them. It is important that we have a policy for returners that is sensitive to their needs, that is effective

    595
    and determined, but that reflects the points that my hon. Friend makes. I promise him that in publishing the White Paper and taking it forward, we will of necessity take that into account.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I share the Home Secretary's desire for a sensitive policy. He and I have shared many views on the return of asylum seekers. Can he tell the House today how many asylum seekers entering this country from France have been returned to France under the Dublin convention since 1997?
    Mr. Blunkett: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that last year 6,828 people were returned automatically to France under a process similar to the gentlemen's agreement mentioned in the Opposition motion to be debated shortly. That was 1,000 more than the previous year. I do not have the number returned under the Dublin convention, for the very reason that I have stated publicly on several occasions, which is that the Dublin convention— to which the Conservative Government agreed and were a party in 1990— has not worked. That is why we are attempting not only to renegotiate under what is now called Dublin mark 2, but to take steps of our own, because waiting for Godot will not get us very far.
    Mr. Letwin: I welcome the Home Secretary's conversion to the view that the Dublin convention does not work. Does he agree that its failure to work probably partly explains the fact that the Home Office's expenditure on asylum support is likely to be £600 million more than was forecast?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, it does not.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend re-examine the question of the number of people who are refused asylum on the grounds of non-compliance? Generally, it is because they failed to return the statement of evidence form within an extremely brief period. Many people claim that they never had the form, or that they sent it back and the Home Office then lost it. It might appear efficient to make decisions in such a way, but in fact it leads to many unnecessary appeals and contributes to the inefficiency of the system. Will he consider extending the period in which people have to return those forms?
    Mr. Blunkett: I should like to ensure the availability of adequate and appropriate advice for fulfilling the obligation, and that induction centres— the first of which opened in Dover on 22 January, as I said in my statement on 29 October— are able to support and help those who seek asylum to complete the form more effectively. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no point in having masses of appeals that could have been resolved earlier and more effectively if the system had been right.

    Sex Offences
    Paul Holmes: When he intends to bring forward proposals following the report on the reform of sex offence laws "Setting the Boundaries"; and if he will make a statement. [29851]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): Tackling sexual offending is a top priority for the Government. We intend to ensure that the legislative framework enables firm action to be taken against those who abuse others. We are actively considering the recommendations of the sex offences review to Government in the light of more than 700 responses received during the consultation period. We intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows, and I will place a short summary of our proposals in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as possible.
    Paul Holmes: Is the Minister aware of the case in January in which the Crown Prosecution Service could not prosecute a man who had persuaded two 11-year-old girls to undress in front of him because he had not physically touched them? Do the Government intend to close that loophole in the law, and, if so, how urgently do they intend to introduce the necessary legislation?
    Mr. Bradley: I was as surprised as many Members about that loophole in the law. We want to ensure that the offences that we introduce are coherent and that they protect vulnerable people, particularly children. I am examining the loophole to ensure that the changes that we propose are coherent. We wish to tackle all possible attempts to abuse children.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Will my right hon. Friend examine a letter that I wrote today to the Secretary of State— I suspect that it will end up on my right hon. Friend's desk— about the difficult and serious case of an assault on a child which has gone unpunished? I suspect that the offence will slip through the net because of proposals to reform sex offences legislation. When my right hon. Friend has read my letter, perhaps he will consider the possibility of linking the issue to the concept of dangerousness, which I know the Department is examining. There are a few abusers who will not otherwise fall easily into the categories that my right hon. Friend is considering.
    Mr. Bradley: I shall examine the case about which my hon. Friend has written. It is taking some time to come forward with our proposals because we received more than 700 detailed responses to the review. We are dealing with a complex area and we want to ensure, as far as we can, that all dangerous and violent sex offenders are covered by legislation, and that the sentencing policy that we bring forward, as a result of the Halliday review, is severe on the perpetrators of offences that we all abhor.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the growing scare about child sex slavery in the United Kingdom, which has been more evident recently. It shames us all that the trade should take place in Britain. The Minister will be aware also that the police tell us that the trade is due to insufficient powers to deal with the merchants of this wicked activity. Given the urgency of the problem, would the Department consider kindly a private Member's Bill that sought exclusively to deal with the issue? If help could be given

    597
    with drafting and the Department gave it a fair wind to ensure that it passed speedily through the House, it would deal with a dreadful nuisance that must be tackled.
    Mr. Bradley: Most important is that the proposals made in legislation are coherent and clear. We must bring forward a package of measures that are designed to tackle a range of issues, one of which the hon. Lady has mentioned. The awful issue to which she referred must be addressed. I want to ensure that the public understand and have confidence in the legislative framework. We must introduce the correct punishment to meet the crimes that are perpetrated. I shall always consider the appropriate vehicles through which to introduce legislation. If possible, it will be best to have a Government package of plans, which we can debate in the House. There has been an opportunity for all parties to contribute to the review, and I shall consider the hon. Lady's contribution.

    Drug Abuse
    Helen Jones: What support he is giving to parents whose children are addicted to drugs. [29853]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Support for the parents, carers and families of young people with drug problems is a crucial part of the national drug strategy. Information about the dangers of drugs and where to get help is routinely distributed to schools, GPs' surgeries and police stations. On 27 December 2001, we launched a campaign to raise awareness of the risks of drugs and to encourage parents and carers to use the national drugs helpline on 0800 776600 for reliable and credible information on the harm that drugs cause and the support that is available. Only three weeks into the campaign, the helpline has seen a significant increase in calls of over 20 per cent.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he accept that despite the progress that has been made, many parents find that their children are taking drugs? Those parents find it difficult to access support and treatment for their children. Even if they get them into treatment, they are put back into their communities to mix with those who got them on to drugs in the first place, without any further support being available.
    I urge my hon. Friend to examine closely representations made by the Footsteps project, which serves my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), which set out the horror stories of some parents. Will he find time in his schedule to talk to parents and groups who represent children at risk, to learn what is happening at the sharp end from the users of services, rather than from those who set up the services?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right; parents have severe problems dealing with those issues, and many lack the confidence to engage with their children about drugs. Studies show that there is a significant reduction in the taking of dangerous drugs by children of parents who have had the confidence to have such conversations. I am aware of the work of Footsteps in Warrington, which is
    598
    funded by the communities against drugs fund. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware, but Warrington is due to get another three posts, funded from a variety of sources, to provide information and support to parents and carers of young people in the near future. I should be happy to receive further information from her about the problems in the area, but I wish to make her aware of that additional funding coming on stream in Warrington.
    Mr. David Cameron: Does the Minister agree that former addicts are often the best people to explain the dangers of drug abuse to children? He will not be aware of it, but I was in Wood Green school in my constituency this morning, sitting at the back of the class while Energy and Vision, a group of former addicts, explained the dangers of drug abuse; they were explaining, rather than preaching. Does the Minister agree that that is the right message and the right way to communicate it? What steps will he take to encourage such voluntary bodies?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman's premise is right; explaining is far more effective than preaching. We will try to engage any available talent to do that. People who have managed to rehabilitate themselves after serious drug offending and drug problems are often prepared to get involved in such campaigns and offer their time. We must try to make sure that we have in place facilities to enable people to make use of that volunteering.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend accept that many voluntary organisations that are providing a wonderful counselling service for parents find themselves strapped for cash, with little money to deliver the service required? Will he ensure that adequate financial support is given to voluntary organisations that provide a worthwhile service?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right; there is a problem, but there have been significant increases in the amount of money available. It takes time for services to come on stream. The Department of Health allocated an extra £5 million in 2001–02, and another £11 million in the next financial year, to provide treatment for young people with serious drug problems and support for their parents. Money is therefore becoming available but, as ever, there is much more that we could do.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Despite what the Minister said about funding, how does he explain the fact that I have a letter from the deputy chief constable of Surrey, who says that in his role in the Surrey drug action team, he found that all the promises of new money made by the Government in 2000 have subsequently been undermined? First, a totally unexpected top-slicing meant that the team immediately had to cut £80,000 from the programmes that it funded. Then, last October, the team was told that year 2 and year 3 funding was under threat. It had been promised a 70 per cent. uplift, but was told that it was likely to be no more than 20 per cent. Senior police officers trying to lead the fight against drugs for the benefit of our children are finding that there is a huge difference between the Government's rhetoric and the reality on the ground, which is cut, cut, cut.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Sadly, in the short time in which I have been dealing with the hon. Gentleman, I have

    599
    learned not to take at face value anything he says. I shall happily check what allegations have been made by his local police officer, and what allegations the hon. Gentleman has added to them, and I shall come back to him with a detailed reply. Over time, I have learned to do that.

    Race Relations
    Mr. Iain Luke: What measures he proposes to improve race relations and community cohesion. [29855]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will be the biggest strengthening of the protections against racial discrimination in 30 years. The Government are working with the public sector to make it effective. On social cohesion, the Government are responding to the reports following last summer's disturbances to develop an active and inclusive vision of Britain, at both local and national level.
    Mr. Luke: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. I am sure that she welcomed, as I did, the 27 per cent. reduction in racially motivated incidents between 1995 and 1999 recorded in the British crime survey last year. Does she agree that the figure of 280,000 incidents recorded in 1999 is still too high? We should be doing all we can to encourage a multi-agency approach to ensure that this pernicious blight is banished from British society.
    Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend that racially motivated attacks are absolutely unacceptable. I know that the addition of the racially aggravated element in sentencing has been one of the success stories since the Lawrence report. I hope that the recent addition of religious motives for aggravated attacks will also help to tackle that pernicious problem.
    Bob Spink: How do the Government propose to deal with discrimination based on religion? Is the Minister aware that a Muslim sheikh has been touring the country urging followers to kill Jews, for instance?
    Angela Eagle: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was during our debates on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but we tried to do something about that. The House disagreed, as did the Lords. If he is now saying that he disagrees with that, and that all those on the Opposition Front Bench and in the Conservative party are having a rethink, perhaps we can consider bringing the legislation back to the House.
    David Winnick: Is it not a matter of deep regret that there is an allegedly Muslim priest touring Britain and promoting Nazi-type race hatred, calling for the killing of Jews and all infidels? Is not that a breach of the law on incitement to race hatred? Why are not the police taking any action? If that person has asked to live in Britain— apparently, he has applied to the Home Office— should not the response this week be, "No. Get out of the country as quickly as possible"?
    Angela Eagle: I can assure my hon. Friend that the police are taking a very close look at the activities of that person. I ask my hon. Friend simply to watch this space.

    Metropolitan Police (Funding)
    John Cryer: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the resource allocation formula for the funding of the Metropolitan police. [29856]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the final proposals for police grant 2002–03 on 30 January. The resource allocation formula is an internal distribution mechanism for the Metropolitan police and as such is a matter for the Commissioner and the Metropolitan police authority. My hon. Friend has been involved in the consultation and will know that a revision of the original formula is still being discussed by the Metropolitan police authority.
    John Cryer: Although the resource allocation formula has given a small increase in my borough, Havering, in east London, and my hon. Friend is right to say that the review is continuing, the tiny increase is not nearly enough. Havering is affected by two factors. First, the town centre of Romford has the second biggest nightclub capacity in the entire south-east of England, outside the west end. Secondly, Havering is the second biggest borough in London and has the most green belt, which brings its own problems. Those two factors bring enormous pressures to bear on the uniformed force. In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Metropolitan police authority and with the Mayor, will he draw those factors to their attention and bring pressure on them to increase the uniformed presence in Havering?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend knows that there has been a substantial increase in recruitment to the Met. By the end of March 2003, the Metropolitan police service will have been allocated a total of 2,044 recruits from the resources of the crime fighting fund. I ask him to accept that it is very difficult for us to become involved in an internal review. It is right that there should be full consultation and that all genuine views and concerns are taken on board in deciding how exactly to place those police resources in the metropolitan area. As I said, I know that he has been involved and has represented his constituents, but I am not sure about the degree to which we should get involved from outside in the review or in the decision about where in the service those police resources need to be placed.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that there is a trend, which is particularly evident in this year's allocation, in which funding of the police is being significantly shifted on to the council tax payer? For example, is he aware that in the Metropolitan police area, the precept per head falling on the council tax payer has increased by 141 per cent. since 1997?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am not sure that I do accept that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the significant increases that have gone into the Metropolitan police service and others through the crime fighting fund. Obviously, matters such as the setting of the precept and the total council tax impact of any decisions are for the authority and others to decide, and not for the Government.

    Child Murders
    Bob Russell: If he will publish the findings of monitoring by his Department of the number of child murders. [29857]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): Although violent crime generally, as measured by the British crime survey, has shown a reduction in recent years, the appalling crime of killing a child fluctuated between 96 and 143 cases a year in the five years up to 2000–01. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that statistics on such killings are published each year. Obviously, the Government are determined to try to bring about a permanent reduction in the number of such cases through a range of measures across government.
    Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that broad reply, but surely she and the Government must be aware that the number of child murders perpetrated by family members has increased by 50 per cent. in the past year or so. Does she agree that a possible cause of that rapid increase is the cuts in the amounts made available to social services and the criticism and undermining of social workers? Will she have words with her ministerial colleagues to ensure that social services are properly funded and that social workers are given all the encouragement that they need?
    Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been an overall increase in child murders this year and that most of that rise is accounted for by perpetrators who are family members or who are known to the child. However, this is a single year, and as I said, the numbers fluctuate considerably, so it is far too early to conclude that this is not a temporary rise and that the level will not fall back again as it has in previous years.
    Certainly, the Government have done a great deal since 1997 to strengthen child protection procedures in the guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children", and through the introduction of a new, robust and more consistent framework for assessment to try to identify circumstances in which children might be at risk within their family. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the funding situation is directly related to the rise in numbers. All local authorities prioritise this area of work, notwithstanding the many calls on their budgets. None the less, following this year's rise, we will be watching the situation very closely.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Judy Mallaber: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders and how to extend their use. [29859]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): Last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced important proposals to increase the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. They include extending the
    602
    power to apply for ASBOs to the British Transport police and registered social landlords, introducing an interim ASBO that can be issued prior to a full hearing, extending the power to make ASBOs to county courts and allowing ASBOs to "travel" with the person when the behaviour is likely to be repeated elsewhere.
    We have also commissioned a review of ASBOs. Furthermore, every crime and disorder reduction partnership will have a co-ordinator to ensure that an effective strategy is in place to tackle antisocial behaviour.
    Judy Mallaber: I welcome the proposals to improve the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. In Amber Valley so far, one order has been taken out as apparently the only mechanism for tackling a long-standing case of antisocial behaviour, about which correspondence going back 10 years was passed on to me by my predecessor.
    Will my right hon. Friend also conduct a survey and review of the availability and training of the solicitors whom the responsible agencies can use to pursue ASBOs? It has been put to me that the agencies are inhibited by the fact that the police have only one solicitor who deals with civil litigation, and that a non-unitary district council has similarly limited legal resources.
    Mr. Bradley: Obviously, I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the use of ASBOs. Hon. Members throughout the country have experienced cases of ASBOs tackling antisocial behaviour effectively. I am also pleased that she welcomes the review.
    My hon. Friend made an important point about legal resources. Although a separate survey will not be conducted on that, the review covers the legal resources of partner agencies to deal effectively with applications for ASBOs and the legal costs of those applications. It is important to consider the matter carefully. When the review is published, I hope that my hon. Friend will find some comfort in the responses that we received.
    Mr. James Gray: We welcome the Home Secretary's announcement last week about the improvement of ASBOs. However, will not the Minister admit that it is too little, too late? The Government stated that they wanted 5,000 ASBOs a year to be used. In the past three years, only 486 orders have been taken out. The community policeman of the year, PC Anthony Sweeney of West Yorkshire police, said that they are unworkable. Are not the Government worried that even after the Home Secretary's announcement, ASBOs will simply be a bureaucratic waste of time and money?
    Mr. Bradley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman believes that ASBOs are a waste of time. I believe that they are welcome in our communities throughout the country as a new and effective tool for dealing with antisocial behaviour. The purpose of the proposals announced by the Home Secretary is to ensure that they become more comprehensive. We are looking at their operation to ensure that they are as effective and efficient as possible. I believe that the Government's general plans,

    603
    for tackling antisocial behaviour, in which ASBOs play an important part, will continue to be welcomed. I have listened carefully to the Opposition's denigration of them.
    Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that in Doncaster the council has taken steps to establish an antisocial behaviour unit in conjunction with partners. The use of ASBOs is beginning to speed up through greater training. However, local magistrates and the youth offending team have told me that they could well use a secure unit in the Doncaster area for those 15 to 17-year-olds who are hard-core, persistent offenders. Will my right hon. Friend consider setting up secure units in places that would be better served by such provision locally? I suggest that Doncaster is one of those areas.
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is right that partnership working is the most effective and efficient use of ASBOs. A good relationship between local authorities, the police and the extra agencies that have been included in the proposals is the best way to promulgate good practice. In my constituency, the relationship between the local authority and the police has been effective in tackling some of the most persistent offenders.
    I shall consider further measures for tackling antisocial behaviour; we shall also examine sentencing policy in light of the Halliday review, and perhaps the extension of provisions such as intensive supervision and surveillance
    604
    programme orders through the youth courts. I shall consider my hon. Friend's proposal for Doncaster carefully. We need firm, effective action to ensure that our communities live in peace and harmony.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is it altogether surprising that there should be such a low take-up of ASBOs when the evidence appears to be that the Government are very slow in making use of other powers that they have to deal with antisocial behaviour? Is it correct, for instance, that the Government have failed to implement section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000? There are 100,000 people who are in breach of their probation, who could be prosecuted for committing two breaches of probation, often of an antisocial kind, and could be sent to prison.
    Mr. Bradley: Once again, we have an Opposition trying to undermine the measures that we have introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime in our communities. Effective measures that have public support are constantly undermined by the Opposition. The provisions in the legislation that we have introduced will be rolled out to ensure the most effective use of the orders. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listen more carefully to the Leader of the Opposition, who always urges a spirit of co-operation to try to tackle the problems in our communities. Once again, words and practice are completely at odds.

Opposition Day
[1OTH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the failure of the Government over the past four years to negotiate with the Government of France on the re-application of the bilateral agreement on immigration to the case of asylum seekers; and calls on the Government to ensure a more equitable distribution within the EU of the responsibility for assessing and meeting the claims of potential refugees.
  I hope that the House will bear with us if we try a minor experiment. Opposition day debates have almost always been used for bringing the Government to account by criticising an aspect of the Government's record and seeking some defence and explanation. That is a useful part of the work of the House, but on this occasion we want to follow a different pattern. It is not our intention to point to Government failure, although there is some in this area, but to seek to explain the cause of the difficulties that the Government have encountered, and try to suggest, in a constructive spirit, how those might be remedied.
  This is an opportune moment to do that because the Home Secretary is about to publish, perhaps in the next few days, a White Paper on asylum and related matters, and it is our belief that, although some of the measures that he proposes are likely to prove effective and all are likely to be well intentioned, the package as a whole is very unlikely to achieve its aims, because it fails to address a huge lacuna in the current arrangements.
  These issues were brought before Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) in a notable debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January 2002, and have been discussed on and off in the back corridors of Whitehall for some years, so I pretend to no originality, but it is also the case that most of the country has not been aware of the cause of the greater part of the problem with which the Home Secretary is wrestling on asylum.
  Why was it only under this Government, who are perfectly well intentioned on asylum, that the issue suddenly attained such prominence? It was not the case that for the first time in recorded history there were many refugees and many people claiming refugee status. It is probably true that there has been something of an increase in the number of displaced persons during this Government's tenure, especially in Europe, owing to many causes of which the House is aware. However, that is by no means the largest part, or even a very significant part, of the explanation for the great rise in the number of those seeking asylum specifically in the UK.
  I do not think that there is any dispute between the Government and ourselves— indeed, the answers that the Home Secretary just gave me in Question Time reinforced that point, and it is evident to both sides of the House— that towards the end of 1997 the bilateral agreement
  606
  between the UK and France, which had governed both immigration and asylum, fell away, or at least those parts of it that related to asylum fell away.
  I do not in the least seek to blame the Government for what happened. No doubt the Home Secretary will, rightly, point out that in the original bilateral agreement it was provided that at the inception of the Dublin convention those parts of the agreement would fall away. That was arranged by a Conservative Government, so no blame attaches to the present Government for the fact that shortly after they came to power, the bilateral agreement fell away.
  However, the Government have now been in power not for a few weeks or a few months, but for almost five years. In any event, we now need to look forward rather than back. The cause of the vast increase in the number of people seeking asylum in this country is almost undoubtedly the falling away of the bilateral agreement and its supersession by the Dublin convention.
  A moment or two ago, the Home Secretary answered my very specific question— about how many people coming from France and seeking asylum in the UK had been returned to France under the Dublin convention— by saying two things. I fully subscribe to one of them, namely that the Dublin convention is not working and he therefore does not know the answer to my question.
  Secondly, he said that a considerable number of people— rather more than 6,000— who had sought entry to the UK had been automatically returned to France. I do not doubt it, but what the Home Secretary was not at pains to point out is that those people were not seeking asylum but were other sorts of immigrants. Of course, the bilateral agreement with the French authorities, which was signed by a Conservative Government, continues to operate with regard to those who are not seeking asylum. The problem relates to those who are seeking asylum.
  Let me illustrate, in very broad orders of magnitude, the scale of the problem with which we are collectively dealing. The official statistics suggest that just over 90,000 people seek asylum in the UK annually. There are rather more than 30,000 people— about 5,000 more, I think— in a similar position in France, which is just over a third of the number here.
  The astonishing fact is that nobody knows how many of the people who seek asylum in the UK come directly or proximately from France. I do not believe that the Home Secretary is concealing any information; there is no published information that allows one to establish the figure exactly. However, estimates have been made, and I believe that there are figures for specific ports. So far as one can make out, about 30,000 people probably come into this country from France seeking asylum every year.
  If we subtract that figure of just over 30,000 from the just over 90,000 people who seek asylum in the UK, and add it to the 30,000 or so people who seek asylum in France, we come up with a surprising and illuminating result: by reinstating the effect of the bilateral agreement between the UK and France in respect of asylum, one could achieve a rough equalisation. I am not speaking in exact figures; I do not think that anybody knows those— I certainly do not. However, there would be a rough equalisation of the burden of dealing with asylum applications in France and the UK.

  607
  In other words, roughly speaking, 60,000 people would be seeking asylum in each of the two countries, rather than the present figures of about 30,000 and about 90,000 respectively.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that English is now a predominant language, especially in the countries from which those people originate, plays an important part? Is he not presenting a rather simplistic argument?
  Mr. Letwin: The strange fact is that the position that the hon. Gentleman correctly alludes to was already undoubtedly true before 1997. None of us can calculate the numbers exactly. There is no doubt that most of those who were seeking asylum before 1997 would have preferred to enter this country, partly on linguistic grounds. However, until about September 1997, if someone travelled from France, for example, to seek asylum in this country on linguistic or any other ground, under the bilateral agreement they were automatically returned—to use the Home Secretary's phrase—to France. That no longer obtains, however. There has been a significant shift in the way the system works and has worked since late 1997.
  The Home Secretary rightly said that the Dublin convention is not an adequate substitute. It does not work because, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), accepted in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January, it has proved quite impossible to establish that the first place in the EU that such people entered was France. The Dublin convention, which relies on the notion of the first place of entry, has not proved an adequate substitute for the bilateral agreement, and numbers have shot up.
  Barring some slight quibble about exact numbers, nothing that I have said so far is a major cause of dissension between ourselves and the Government. I suspect that the position that I have outlined is one with which the Home Secretary himself has wrestled, and that like me he would prefer the creation of something resembling the bilateral agreement. Indeed, in replying to the Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary eloquently sketched those very problems, and was at pains to point out how far the Government have gone in negotiating with the French. She referred to negotiations about Sangatte and many other matters, and I have no doubt that the Government are worthily engaged in repeated discussions with the French.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is adopting a constructive tone, which has not always been struck in past debates on this subject, but does he really believe that we can deal with the problems associated with movements of people within Europe purely through bilateral agreements with France, or any other country? To make progress on this issue, we need to develop common systems that involve not just the UK and France, but other European countries. Such systems are already being discussed in the EU.
  Mr. Letwin: The honest answer to the hon. Gentleman's reasonable question is no—I suffer from no such illusion. I am sure that a bilateral agreement with France is not a complete solution and many of our
  608
  recommendations, and many of the proposals in the Home Secretary's White Paper, go beyond that. Moreover, there is undoubtedly a place for multilateral negotiation. However, unlike under the bilateral agreement, France now bears about one third of the burden borne by the UK. France is also totally out of kilter not just with the UK but with Germany, Italy and other EU countries. It is therefore reasonable to propose—as I said, I suspect the Home Secretary and I could agree on such a proposition—that the problems with which the Home Secretary and the country are wrestling would be vastly ameliorated if the bilateral agreement were reinstated.
  Mr. Gerrard: Does not the history of dealing with asylum issues and illegal entry by trying to plug a perceived loophole show that another route will be found? Unless we achieve multilateral agreements, no solutions will be found and people will simply move from place to place.
  Mr. Letwin: There are facts of geography about which the hon. Gentleman and I can agree. France is rather near and rather large, and large numbers of people have always found their way there. A stubborn fact, difficult to ignore, is that when the bilateral agreement was in place, a significantly smaller number of people found their way into the United Kingdom seeking asylum and a rather larger number remained in, or returned to, France. The precise nature of those facts is difficult to pin down because the whole matter is shrouded in statistical obscurity, but the general outline is clear. I am not seeking to solve all problems in a trice by these means, but simply to solve a major part of the problem. That would be a constructive effort in itself.
  Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even if there were to be a bilateral agreement, and there is an argument for that, it would be a small contribution to the wider issue? According to the migrant helpline in Dover, the numbers coming through the channel tunnel are going down. According to the figures that I was given when I was in Sangatte last Friday, 98 per cent. of those attempting to come from France to England in the Calais area are stopped in France, and only 2 per cent. are found as illegal asylum seekers here. Therefore, the reality is that about 2 per cent. of people might be sent back. Of those, many keep attempting to come here, so sending them back is not a solution.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is not a solution in that it is not a complete solution. I do not think that he is right to speak purely of illegal efforts to enter this country. In many cases, we are talking about people residing in France who make an effort to enter this country, which may not, in itself, be illegal. None of us knows the exact numbers. As I said, the whole matter is shrouded in statistical obscurity. However, my suggestion could form a significant part of a solution. The hon. Gentleman is right to describe it as an advance and say that there is a case for it. As for whether, on reinstating the bilateral agreement, so much of the problem goes away that the rest of the Home Secretary's measures are enough to cure the problem, I do not speculate. However, it would be an advance if we could at least cure this part of the problem.

  609
  I wish to address two points that have been raised by people who reject the idea of reinstating a bilateral agreement. Interestingly, neither was raised by the Under-Secretary in her response to the debate on 29 January, which suggests that, quite rightly, the Government do not place any emphasis on these arguments. However, I want to dispel them before they are raised in this debate.
  It has been argued that we cannot have a bilateral agreement because of the Dublin convention. The Under-Secretary was right to say on 29 January that that is a false argument. It is possible to have a bilateral agreement, notwithstanding the Dublin convention. It is possible not only in theory but in practice, as has been shown by Germany and Denmark, which have such an agreement in place. I accept that there are disanalogies as well as analogies between the Danish-German case and our own vis-à-vis France. However, the continued existence of the German-Danish bilateral agreement, never challenged, shows that it is possible to have such an agreement notwithstanding the Dublin convention. I think that we are agreed with Ministers on that point.
  The second argument is that it is not possible to renegotiate a bilateral agreement when it would be so advantageous for the UK and so disadvantageous for France, which seems to bear out the strength of my previous argument. This is where I take issue with the doomsayers. I accept that we cannot expect the Home Secretary to find himself one sunny morning in Paris, alongside his opposite number in the French Government, and, over a croissant and cup of coffee, emerge, without cost to the UK, with a new, glistening bilateral agreement that resolves the problem.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Or a bottle of burgundy
  Mr. Letwin: Even a bottle of burgundy, as the Home Secretary says from a sedentary position, would not be sufficient to achieve this admirable result. I accept that the process of negotiation is difficult. What I do not accept is the proposition that because it is difficult, we should give up.
  If I believed that, I should have to disbelieve the entirety of the Government's rhetoric about their relationship with our European Union partners. I have heard it said repeatedly over the past few years that the point of the Government's strategy vis-à-vis our EU partners was that it had put the Government in a position to achieve successful outcomes to difficult negotiations because it would be in our partners' interests to do diplomatic deals with us in the knowledge that we would do deals with them. In short, we would be part of the club, obey the rules and be good citizens so that we could achieve things of use to our country.
  If ever an item would clearly be of use to our country, the bilateral agreement is one. If, therefore, there were ever a case, vis-à-vis a major European partner, for implementing the strategy on which the Government pride themselves, this is it. If the Foreign Office knew how to engage effectively in diplomacy, it would know what to trade and how to trade in order to achieve the desired result. It has, uncharitably, sometimes been alleged that just as the Department of Trade and Industry sponsors
  610
  industry under the present Administration, and the Department for Education and Skills sponsors teachers, so the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsors foreigners. I do for one moment believe that lamentable accusation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In contrast to some of my hon. Friends, I am persuaded that the officials of the FCO and the Foreign Secretary—not least because he was a distinguished occupant not long ago of the Home Secretary's current office—are fully conversant with the fact that it is in our interest to achieve a renegotiated bilateral agreement. I imagine that they have all the skills necessary to identify the items—minor items, but significant to the Quai d'Orsay—that could be traded off for that desirable result.
  It is not necessary for the French Government to accept a new agreement. As the Home Secretary pointed out during Question Time, the bilateral agreement still exists and applies to cases that are not related to asylum. All that is necessary is the adjustment, by reinstatement of one sub-paragraph, of an existing bilateral agreement. That should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Foreign Office.
  My point is that if that action is not taken, the Home Secretary will produce his White Paper in good faith, we shall consider its proposals constructively and the country will hope that it will succeed. It is very likely, however, that it will turn out to be a car without an engine. A system that is under the greatest strain will not be able to implement its third system in just a few years—even the first of those systems has not yet been fully implemented—while the sheer number of applications continues at its present rate, largely because of the absence of the bilateral agreement. I am trying to provide the Home Secretary with a means to reduce the flow into the bathtub so that he may succeed in dealing with the water in the bath. That is a piece of constructive opposition, and I hope that the Home Secretary will take advantage of it.
  Dr. Iddon: How would the hon. Gentleman answer the criticism made of the original bilateral agreement, that those who had knowledge of English procedures and the language were able to stay here long enough to implement judicial processes that meant that they spent longer on British soil than on French, making the French reluctant to accept them back in a transfer?
  Mr. Letwin: I answer that point in the words of the bilateral agreement. Incidentally, the agreement has sometimes been misrepresented as being a gentleman's agreement. It was nothing of the kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] I intend no adverse comment on either of the signatories. It was signed by officials of the two states on 20 April 1995, and it spoke of:
  "Refusal of admission and removal within 24 hours of departure".
  That had exactly the automaticity of which the Home Secretary spoke so powerfully in the—irrelevant—case of those who are not seeking asylum. The very fact that the agreement works so well for those not seeking asylum—as the Home Secretary pointed out during Question Time—gives hope that it will again, as it did in the past, work well for those who are seeking asylum, precisely because of that speed.
  My closing comments also relate to a point that was made during Question Time. The Home Secretary has not so far tried to deny the assertion—I shall be the first to

  611
  withdraw if he does deny it—founded on a document in my possession that appears to be leaked, that the initial estimate for expenditures on the asylum support system in the UK for 2001–02 will be about £1.09 billion. The document notes that
  "figures are estimates in advance of grant claims from local authorities. The allocation at the start of the year was £403 million, which was understood to be a provisional estimate."
  I quite understand that provisional estimates are never accurate. I accept that a variation of 10 per cent., or even 20 per cent., especially in a demand-led service of this kind, would be normal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), in his former role as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, might have been willing to grant that a 30 or 40 per cent. increase was tolerable in such circumstances. When we are dealing with an increase of 150 per cent. compared with the provisional figure, however, it looks as though some accident has occurred: it looks as though some carelessness has crept into the system.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that accident or carelessness is comparable with the accident or carelessness that occurred under the previous Government, when towns such as Slough were expected—with no prior warning—to maintain asylum seekers with no support at all from the Government? That decision put a £2 million hole in the budget of the council in the town that I represent.
  Mr. Letwin: The figure seems large. However, I am more than prepared to accept that the asylum system has for a long time imposed serious strains on all Governments. I began the debate by saying that I did not seek, on this occasion, to use the Opposition day to prove a failure by the Government, but rather to suggest a way forward. I am willing to accept that the strains under which the present system of asylum, the lack of the bilateral agreement and the other deficiencies of structure have put the Home Office have made it well-nigh impossible for the Home Office to constrain the sums it spends—or even remotely accurately to predict them.
  During Question Time, the Home Secretary said that the lack of the bilateral agreement and the numbers coming to us from France were no part of the explanation of the under-prediction. It will be interesting to learn whether that is because he does not believe that the under-prediction actually occurred. Perhaps he will tell us that there is some other cause.
  My claim is simple. At present, neither the Home Secretary, for all the good will that he has displayed in this matter, nor his officials, for all the ingenuity that they are displaying and will display when the White Paper is implemented, are able to deal with the problems that we face as a nation, because the weight of the numbers and the speed of the arrival and the disproportion— [Interruption] Does my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) want to intervene?
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend refers to the weight of numbers. I was observing that it was not a description that would apply to the number of Labour MPs attending the debate.
  Mr. Letwin: That is not a point that I would have made—although it is nevertheless strangely true.
  612
  The disproportion between the burden being borne by this country and by our nearest and closest neighbour is so great that no group of men and women—however mightily they strive—is likely to conquer the problem. I hope, therefore, that rather than refuting and retorting, the Home Secretary will adopt what I believe to be the right posture in the face of such suggestions. I hope that he will entertain the possibility that he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to get to work, with all the wiles for which our Foreign Office has long been known, to try to reinstate a bilateral agreement that, although it will not be a complete solution—I accept the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—will none the less make a constructive effort to help us bear and solve a problem whose solution has for so long eluded us.
  4 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that co-operation with France on immigration and asylum issues is greater now than it has ever been; recognises that there has been an overall drop from 13,527 in 2000 to 10,927 in 2001, a drop of almost 20 per cent., in the number of people crossing illegally to the UK from France; further notes that bilateral co-operation continues to address the problem of asylum seekers in Northern France, that the French have made significant investment in police reinforcements in the region and judicial action has been taken against human traffickers and that, as a result of the imposition of the civil penalty, the number of clandestine entrants was reduced by 27 per cent. in 2001; and further notes that the previous Conservative Government left the asylum system in complete disarray, with local authorities left to pick up the pieces.'.
  I take it from the manner and tone of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in this afternoon's presentation that he—rather than his chief of staff, whom I have read about this weekend—wrote his speech. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition entered the Chamber a minute or two ago, so I also take it that the hon. Gentleman's speech is a follow-through from his leader' speech last week, but presented in a different tone. I now understand the hon. Gentleman's tone, and I like it. In fact, on Friday at Cardiff, I said, "You are awful, but I like you." Dick Emery used to say that, and the phrase seemed to fit very well.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: He used to get dressed up.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not going to do that even for my friend, the Leader of the Opposition—even though The Mirror reported that we dined together. We dined during the general election campaign at a secret meeting in North Yorkshire. We met, had a buffet supper and then debated on Radio 4's "Any Questions", and we both enjoyed it very much. At that moment, I thought that if one lad from North Yorkshire fails, this lad will succeed in leading the Tory party, but we have got nothing to worry about. That is what I thought at the time, and nothing has disabused me of it since.
  We are debating an interesting issue: putting Britain first. I think that that was the thrust of the Leader of the Opposition's speech last week, so this debate is a follow-through. I am pleased that we are debating the issue this afternoon because this happens to be the day that the

  613
  French Government have implemented legislation, which they had to push through their Parliament, known as the implementation of domestic juxtaposed controls at Paris. We already have juxtaposed checks in London and Paris because they were imposed when the channel tunnel opened, but those using the domestic rail route from Paris to Calais did not have to be checked by British immigration officials. As a consequence, people with domestic tickets used that loophole to stay on the train and travel through the tunnel. The British Government pressed the French to legislate; they had to change their law.
  I want the House to consider what would have happened if the French Government had requested us to alter our internal ticketing and travel arrangements so that people travelling from London to Dover had to go through French passport and immigration controls just to be able to get to Dover, not France. The mirror image of that has been imposed by the French today, having legislated during the autumn. We should get into perspective what the French are prepared, or not prepared, to do.
  Given the tone of the hon. Gentleman's introduction, I shall be honest with him. Who believes that we will achieve a major change in French immigration policy in the immediate run-up to the presidential and Assembly elections in April and June? I am prepared to have a go and ask—I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will join me—President Chirac not to make immigration an issue in the French presidential elections. If he is prepared to do that, we can stand four-square together, and we can get somewhere. The French Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior and Madame Guigou, the Minister with responsibility for the encampments and the accommodation, would be in a much better position—would they not?—to respond to our approaches.
  I would obviously also have to take into account the very different situation that has existed in France over the years and that the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows about: the tolerated illegal presence. Part of renegotiating the Dublin agreement involves ensuring that that state of affairs does not exist. For those who are not totally familiar with the issue, the problem is that the position in France is unlike that in Britain. If the people at an encampment such as Sangatte seek to move on to claim asylum elsewhere and do not claim asylum in France, they are not arrested or removed. That policy goes back a long way in France and, as the hon. Gentleman said about another front, the position is not the same in Germany, Italy or most other European countries. Tolerated illegal presence means that people are not claiming asylum in France.
  That point is relevant because of the agreement that Germany and Denmark reached in Dublin. It relates to those people who tried to claim asylum in Germany but failed and who then tried to move across the border to Denmark to claim asylum there. However, we are faced with a very different situation. We cannot persuade people to claim asylum in France for love or money. We have promised them free Burgundy, sunshine and all sorts of other things, but they will not do so.
  With the best will in the world, I cannot compel the French Government to force potential asylum seekers to claim asylum in France. However, I can make it clear to the French Government that if asylum seekers refuse to claim asylum in France, they are tolerating an illegal
  614
  presence. Under Dublin II, as it has become known, we need to be able to enforce the same approach across Europe, so that those who refuse to seek asylum in the country in which they are illegally present are removed to the place from where they came.
  Holding this debate today is interesting, not least because I have had to do my homework on it. I always welcome that, as I did when I was the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Doing our homework is good for us, and it enables us to enlighten others, such as the avid readers of Hansard across the country waiting for our every word to dribble out on the web.
  Simon Hughes: I too welcome this debate, as I did last Tuesday's debate with the Under-Secretary. That too was a good-natured event that sought the truth.
  Will the Home Secretary answer two questions to which I do not know the answers? First, apart from the agreement between Germany and Denmark—we know about that—is he aware of any other bilateral conventions between European Union countries that deal with people who have sought asylum and moved, or not moved, on? Secondly, how far have the discussions that the EU Commission initiated in September proceeded? They were an attempt to reach a more universal EU-wide agreement that would not rely on bilateral arrangements. Answers to those questions would provide relevant background information.
  Mr. Blunkett: First, I am aware of no other countries that have such an agreement—and probably for the reasons that I have just enunciated. Secondly, the Commission set up a working party that continues to meet. We hope that, under the Spanish presidency, the process will be accelerated because Spain, like us, has a particular interest in this issue. Many people enter Spain from Morocco and north Africa, and Spain also wants a more rational and sensible Europe-wide agreement. Whatever the differences between me and Conservative Members, we all know and believe in our hearts that that is a sensible way forward. I hope that in future some sense will emerge.
  I shall return to the well presented questions that arose after the Dublin agreement of 1990. There was a so-called gentleman's agreement between 1995 and 1997, but the difficulty was not that there was not reasonable intent, but that the time scales, as enunciated by the hon. Member for West Dorset, were very tight. People had to be turned back literally overnight. A difficulty arose before the gentleman's agreement because of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and the wonderful terms in it, such as "statutory suspensive appeal", that related to whether people could exercise their right of appeal.
  The Home Secretary tried to change the law in 1996, but as experts in this field will recall, he had difficulties with judges over withdrawal of benefits. The courts ruled that the National Assistance Act 1948 requires support to be given. As local authorities had become the conduit for that support, we decided to provide a more rational way of providing it by establishing the National Asylum Support Service. Incidentally, the local authority grant has grown over the years and is now £500 million, which is a tremendous amount of money.

  615
  The Government not only ran into problems with the courts in 1996 but had problems with my favourite legal ruse, judicial review. Having agreed to set aside the 1993 Act, they decided to have a judicial review of the removal of asylum seekers, thereby delaying deportation, a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) alluded. People were therefore able to stay in this country longer than they had in France and were entitled to claim asylum here.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Surely the Home Secretary accepts that the legal difficulties to which he refers occurred at the very end of the last Conservative Government. His party has been in power for five years. Surely he and his predecessor should have found a way to address that gap in the law which, as he rightly says, was generated by judges perhaps over-reaching their authority.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is an interesting observation. When we debated the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I suggested that judicial review was used inappropriately, and we had an interesting discussion on whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission should become a court of superior record. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply exercised by my concerns about judicial review. I suspect that we will return to that subject in the months and years to come because judicial review has been used over the past 20 years to thwart Parliament's decisions. There is no question about that. I look forward to receiving support from all quarters of the House if we think it necessary to introduce measures to clarify the situation and make the will of Parliament clear. The important consideration is whether the system in operation is fair and reasonable. It cannot be used simply to build in delays that frustrate the will of Parliament and therefore the democratic will of the country. That is an interesting test of what we need to do.
  Of course there are problems, such as whether people are claiming asylum in France. If they are trying to get into this country, however, we have the problem of turning them around fast enough when they make a claim. As I said at Question Time, last year we sent back to France more than 6,800 people who, for a variety of reasons, either did not immediately claim asylum or did not have a substantive claim. The moment that someone claims asylum, they become part of the process.
  It is interesting to consider how many people are coming through the tunnel or crossing the channel, and whether the number poses a serious problem. It is a worry, not least to a Home Secretary returning from his summer holiday. For example, the Daily Express—I do not want to pick on it; after all, it has only picked on me every other day since 10 June—highlights day after day the hordes of people who are supposed to be entering our country through the tunnel. What is actually happening is that they are not getting through, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made clear. The visual signs in August and September, whether by photograph or television, vividly demonstrated the difficulty. At Christmas, 500 people stormed the barbed wire trying to get through, but they did not get through. Measures have been taken to help with that, and to help cross-channel carriers on the ferries.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as Eurotunnel's attempts to reopen
  616
  the route have failed on each occasion, the lives of many asylum seekers have been put at risk, and that freight carriers in the Vale of York and elsewhere in the country are being hugely disadvantaged because trains are to be checked only between 9 pm and 3 am? The escalation of the asylum seeker problem has ramifications for the transport industry as well as for his Department.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am painfully aware of that. The measures that I announced on 19 September involved co-operation with those operating on the French side of the tunnel and the ports—working not only with Eurotunnel, for instance, but with SNCF and English, Welsh and Scottish Railways—to see whether we can assist in advance security measures and agree the steps that need to be taken.
  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing me to this point in my speech more speedily than I otherwise would have reached it. I am pleased to say that, after more than four months since a civil penalty was imposed on Eurotunnel, and owing to the measures that it has implemented and the dramatic fall in the number of people getting through illegally, we are lifting the civil penalty as from this afternoon. We will do so for SNCF for similar reasons, and we have withdrawn any claim concerning EWS, which we accept is not legally liable for its efforts.
  That has been achieved because enormous strides have been taken. We want Eurotunnel and others to be able concentrate their time and resources on ensuring that they can operate commercially and effectively and on continuing to take with us the rigorous steps that have been taken. That illustrates that, as with SNCF and the French, we will reciprocate where there is co-operation, as with the juxtaposed checks at Paris that will operate from today.
  A number of things are moving and there is improvement, but as I said to Elisabeth Guigou, there will be no progress until Sangatte is closed and no alternative is opened along the coast. She accepts, and indicated publicly that she had not advocated, and will not advocate, a further Sangatte in the Pas-de-Calais area, and that the long-term objective must be to close Sangatte. I believe that the short-term objective must be to close it, and we need to consider how we can do that, now or following the presidential and assembly elections, in a meaningful way.
  All that leads me to believe that the problem is Europe-wide and international and that it needs to be set in the context of more widely managed migration and nationality policy and not simply asylum. We need a reasonable and rational debate. I therefore welcome the tone adopted by the shadow Home Secretary. In response to my statement on 29 October, he put his position in the form of questions. I failed to acknowledge all 15 of them, but I acknowledge now that he is entirely right to believe that I would accept that he is an honourable man and that the answers to most of the questions were yes. I believe that when we debate the White Paper the response will be similarly balanced.
  Mr. Gregory Barker: Does the Home Secretary accept that asylum seekers will keep on coming until the chaos of their processing is sorted out? Last month, two young Afghan lads came to see me at my surgery in Battle to say that they had arrived

  617
  separately and applied for asylum in November 1999—one had paid $10,000 to be smuggled into the country on a lorry—but that more than two years later, they had yet to receive their first Home Office interview. For more than two years, they have been left in limbo, the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, unable to work, and a burden on the taxpayer. Whether they stay or go, it is in no one's interest—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord):Order.
  Mr. Blunkett: That sounds like an Adjournment debate to me, but one that I would rather not inflict on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I suggest that we take up the problem and do something about it. All hon. Members must recognise that I would have to be out of my mind not to want to change the administration and improve the effectiveness and operations of my Department's immigration and nationality directorate. I am determined to do so because, as I said last week, the Home Secretary is responsible and accountable for the actions of the thousands of people whom we employ. I am determined to get the matter sorted, and the system that we are to establish will help those people to do that.
  That in no way undermines any of the points that have been made. We face a major challenge and we need to get Europe-wide agreement. In the meantime, we have to adopt rigorous measures ourselves to build trust and confidence in this country, and we need to ensure that our response is reasonable.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give us some idea of what progress is being made with our European partners other than France?
  Mr. Blunkett: I believe that there is a new spirit in the European Union's perception of immigration and asylum issues. In part, the desire to co-operate to deal with the threat of international terrorism has accelerated people's understanding of the need to co-operate on these issues. In part, global changes are having a major impact. The ramifications of the Taliban's fall have started a chain reaction that affects us all and that none can escape. The boat people trying to get to Australia and the changes in immigration law in that country and others illustrate that impact. We have a common purpose of trying to ensure that we get our systems right.
  There are no more countries to which we can pass people on; it is therefore inevitable that we will have to have robust border controls. We need to recognise the implications of that. I hope that we will have got the balance right when the White Paper is published. However, if the spirit of the shadow Home Secretary's approach at the end of October and again today is indicative of future debates, although the issue—not least the effectiveness of the policies that I introduce—will never be taken out of politics, we might be able to have a rational debate. Although his history is inaccurate and the solution that he seeks is therefore not immediately attainable, at least we have had a rational debate today.
  4.23 pm
  Simon Hughes: I welcome the debate and its constructive and rational tone, which I intend to do nothing to disrupt. I welcomed equally the similar debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in Westminster Hall last Tuesday. I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that that was a constructive and interesting aperitif to today's debate as well.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is aware of my respect for him, but I am amused by the way in which renegotiation of the bilateral agreement between Britain and France, which appeared to be a Back-Bench policy last Tuesday, moved quickly on Wednesday and Thursday to become a Front-Bench policy that has now been aired in debate today. I congratulate the Conservatives on the speed of their response to their right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Although entirely proper, the argument is not one that I had heard before last Tuesday in Westminster Hall.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to engage in a piece of honesty, which I shall perhaps regret later. The argument has been recent because we only recently asked ourselves, "Why did all this start going so terribly wrong shortly after the disappearance of the Conservative Government?" We came to the conclusion that it was not likely to be that fact which brought about the consequences, so we looked for other facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) must take the credit for raising the issue in the first place.
  Simon Hughes: Let me continue to be honest, and, I hope, courteous to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is much respected for his expertise and knowledge. We greatly appreciate his contributions. There is nothing wrong. We are trying, too, to find factual explanations and to be constructive. I hope that now, when we get the White Paper and during the debates between then and the Bill, there can be the best possible answers to these difficult international questions.
  I have some other introductory words for the Home Secretary. I welcome, but I am sure not nearly as much as Eurotunnel or the other operators, the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman a short while ago of the withdrawal of the civil penalty. If I may say so, that is a proper reward and a proper response. Having expended quite a lot of effort over the past six months informing myself of the facts, I believe that considerable efforts have been made and millions of pounds invested, not least by Eurotunnel, to try to help the authorities on both sides, as well Eurotunnel itself, to deal with the clear difficulty of trying to prevent people moving illegally from France to the United Kingdom.
  I do not want to repeat verbatim or in general the speech that I made in Westminster Hall on Tuesday. I shall however say a few words about the background before I turn to the foreground.
  I was extremely helped by the time that I spent on Friday morning and Friday afternoon, only three days ago, in Sangatte and Calais, with the Red Cross, with its camp director and with staff. I had the opportunity to talk to asylum seekers, or would-be asylum seekers, or migrants in the camp, of whom there were many.

  619
  Secondly, I had the opportunity to talk to representatives of Eurotunnel on their site. I have talked to them in this place, but I was able to talk to them on site and to see the site itself. I spent some time with the company's officials and employees as vehicles were being checked. Like every other day, the checks revealed that people were trying illegally to get through. That happened last Friday morning, and those involved were intercepted by the twin efforts of Eurotunnel staff, who first engaged in electronic video imaging of vehicles and then a carbon dioxide test to determine whether humans were in the vehicles in question. In other words, there is a double check. That resulted in a number of people being found, even in the earlier hours of Friday morning before I had arrived. They were handed over to the authorities and made no further progress.
  We must see the issue in the context of the pattern of refugees and asylum seekers and their movements throughout the world. For those who follow these debates—mercifully, there are quite a few—the most useful compendium that I have found is a large volume, which I often carry with me on these occasions, which is published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Oxford University Press. It sets out the state of the world's refugees and provides all the figures from 1950 to 2000. It shows that patterns of migration change; the countries from which people come change too.
  The publication makes the telling point that, of about 12 million people who are refugees, most of them are near where they fled from. Most of them are refugees not in the rich north-west of Europe but in poor parts of the world—Pakistan, if they fled from Afghanistan, or central Africa if they fled from other countries in central Africa. When we confront these issues, we must remember how relatively few people make their way to the shores of Britain, or seek to come to Britain at all.
  If we compare the number of people who apply for entry with the wealth of the country concerned, we are about 77th in the league table. If we take the number of people who seek to come to a country relative to its population, in terms of the European Union, we are about seventh, eighth or ninth. It is true that in recent years the numbers of people who have sought to come to the United Kingdom have increased. However, they have not grown without interruption over the past decade. They grew in the first part of the 1990s and then the numbers fell. They grew again and then again they declined, and they have now grown significantly in the past few years.
  Although we have not seen a final version of last year's figures, in each of the last couple of years, about 90,000 people have sought to come to this country. The obvious next question is: how many have had their applications granted? The figures are not insignificant. Whatever the arguments about the many people who are not asylum seekers but economic migrants—the Home Secretary was right to say that, to be honest, almost everybody falls into one category or the other—if they are not asylum seekers, they are still seeking to better themselves, so it is right that the Government should think of ways of giving them a proper channel to apply to go through on the basis of economic opportunity. But in 2000, the last full year for which figures are available, 31 per cent. of asylum seekers had their applications granted and a further 18 per cent. had applications granted on appeal. So of those who arrived and put a case, just short of 50 per cent. of them, although the figure has been lower and occasionally higher, have had their case accepted by authorities.
  620
  I therefore hope that our debate will acknowledge that many of those people make a good case to come here and are fleeing awful circumstances. As a constituency MP, I have heard about enough awful circumstances from people from Sierra Leone whose families have been brutally murdered, as well as from people from Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Afghanistan and the middle east. Unless someone does our sort of job, or works with those people regularly, they would not understand that, unless we come to the debate with compassion and humanity, we are not doing our job properly as parliamentarians. I hope that people outside, including some of those who write for national daily papers, have as much interest in presenting that side of the story as they do in presenting the somewhat distorted picture of people trying to break through and come illegally to the United Kingdom.
  One other preliminary point—[Interruption.] I heard the Home Secretary. I beg his pardon; one other linked point is that it is imperative that we seek—and I hope that the Bill to be introduced after the White Paper will do so—first, to provide a way for people who want to come here as economic migrants to put a case; and secondly, to provide a route for asylum seekers who reach the European Union to put their case when they get here. I agree that the Dublin convention, which may have been conceived with the best intentions, has failed, for obvious reasons. If somebody first comes to the attention of the authorities in, for example, northern France, it is unlikely that they will know exactly where they entered the EU and which was the first country in which they arrived. Even if they knew, they might not tell the authorities; and if they did tell them, they would probably not have any papers to confirm it. The theory that they could be sent back to the country in which they first arrived is unlikely ever to work in practice.
  The arrangements are also nonsense because, by definition, most people arrive across the landmass from the east and the south; enforcing them would put all the burden on Greece, Austria and Germany, and very little on other countries to the west. That international issue is sometimes created by European migration—for example, owing to civil war in the former Yugoslavia—and sometimes by events like the terrible troubles in Afghanistan; but we need to address it collectively so that we share the burden responsibly. We therefore endorse the reference to that aim in the Conservative motion; indeed, we adopted it in our amendment, and it is a shared European objective. Generally, the number of people applying in France appears to be going up; the number applying in Britain may be going up too. In any event, we must realise that we are in this together.
  The Home Secretary is of course right that it is probably more likely that agreements with the French, or agreements to which the French will be party, will be made after the two sets of elections than before. We are political realists. Immigration issues register quite high in domestic politics, for obvious reasons, so we will probably have to wait until after the presidential and parliamentary assembly elections in the spring and early summer, and until the new Administration have the confidence to answer such questions anew.
  In the light of my experience last Friday, I have five practical suggestions. My experience at Sangatte confirmed that it is not a holiday camp: it is not luxurious. It is a completely unheated hangar, in which there are twice as many people as there are beds, and in which there

  621
  are mainly men aged between 16 and 30, but a considerable number of women, teenagers and children also. They queue for hours for a shower. The hot water is on for about four hours a day—two hours in the morning and two in the evening. The people queue for many hours for their two meals a day. There is one small television, which broadcasts in French. I did not see a single newspaper, magazine or piece of educative material.
  I had conversations with some of the people there—all of whom, as it happens, come from Afghanistan—who spoke English; the majority do not. They made it clear to me, first, that they left Afghanistan because at the time the country was extremely disrupted and had a history of almost 25 years of war; secondly, that they left with the support of their families, because their families wanted them to escape and to better themselves; and thirdly, that although they understood that things had settled in Afghanistan, they were unlikely to believe, about a month after the interim Government took office, that there was in place the stable peace that they hoped for, given that all the other stable peaces for which they had hoped over the past 25 years had been false dawns.
  We cannot persuade people to go back the minute peace comes to a country or part of a country. It is just not a credible argument that things will not be as bad again if they go home. A belief that we can immediately say, "If you come from Afghanistan, you will all now feel comfortable about going back", struck me as an unrealistic option. It might be much more realistic in the medium or long term, but as of today, this month and next month, very little in the world will persuade those people that they ought to go home.
  Secondly—the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) made a similar point—when I asked the people how they had come to Europe, most said that they had paid about $10,000. Most had put themselves in the hands of the traffickers. Most of them chose to say that they wanted to go to the UK, either because, from their own information back in Afghanistan or wherever else they believed that that would be the best place—with the highest principles, respect for human rights, opportunities to work and decent treatment—or because, having listened to the World Service and so on, they spoke English and felt more comfortable with the language than with any other.
  Those were practical reasons, but I asked people whether, if Denmark, Germany, France or another country offered them the same prospects, they would consider going there, and many said yes. I suggest to the Home Secretary, and I will suggest to the French ambassador when I see him next—I hope to see him again soon—that the most immediately useful step would be to establish an education and information programme at Sangatte, to give people the facts about what is happening in the countries from which they come, about the options for them now, and about what would happen to their case if they came to the UK. Many of them ought to know that even if they came, their case might be unlikely to succeed.
  If, in the two hours I spent speaking to people at Sangatte, I was able to begin a dialogue which, I think, was effective in sharing some information, surely such an information flow could be provided on a regular basis. Certainly, the French Government have principal
  622
  responsibility. The Red Cross is happy to facilitate it, and I would hope that other EU Governments will be able to help.
  Thirdly, no one has apparently done objective research—so the director told me—into the routes, the motivation of the people coming and so on. A few journalists have asked a few questions, but nobody has checked the facts which, as the hon. Member for West Dorset reminded us, often are not known. There ought to be some scientific random sampling of the people at Sangatte now, so that we can find out where they are coming from and who is bringing them, and so that we can deal with some of the causes of their being there.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it may be a good idea to ask asylum seekers precisely those questions? Should we not ask them who brought them here and try to find out who the traffickers are? Perhaps we could persuade them by saying, "Look, if you tell us, you may have a better chance of getting here." I know that that approach is a bit hard, but it is so important to find out who is making all the money that we should perhaps tie consent to the giving of information.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady raises a perfectly proper question. Indeed, I asked such questions myself. My understanding is that many of the traffickers come from eastern Europe. They are around and about in northern France and shuttle between there and elsewhere regularly. Certainly, they should be picked up by the authorities on the basis of such information, where that is possible.
  One of the things that came across very clearly is that the showing of a video to try to dissuade people from attempting illegally to cross the channel was a complete disaster. It failed for two obvious reasons. First, I understand it included images of the white cliffs of Dover, which made coming here even more appealing instead of putting people off. Secondly, it showed people trying to break into vehicles, which gave ideas about how to do so. No wonder it did not succeed in putting anybody off, but had the reverse effect. Everybody told me that the last thing we should do is go down that road again. People with authority and experience are needed to talk to those who are waiting individually in order to persuade them and offer options for the way forward.
  My judgment is that Sangatte will probably not close in the very near future, for reasons that have been tested in the French courts. The camp probably should not be located where it is; it is within sight of the channel and the ferries are visible from it. I understand that that is an incentive for people to leave. However, there is no way on earth that the safeguards that Eurotunnel and others have introduced—they now pick up and stop 98 per cent. of people who are trying illegally to come through the tunnel—can be perfect. I spoke to people and I know that the evidence shows that, if a fence is built 2 km from the coast, people will come in 2.5 km from the coast, and the problem will merely be pushed back.
  Some 70 per cent. of all freight coming through the tunnel is not container freight, but is open-sided, so people can get in at some stage. It will probably happen at an overnight stop. Most lorry drivers do not know what has happened. Most people are picked up and dealt with, but they will try again, as in their heads is the intention to try

  623
  to come to Britain. We know the consequences. Most of them do not succeed and terrible injury and occasional death occur in the process. If and when Sangatte closes, we need instead several accommodation centres in and around Europe of the sort that the Government are proposing for this country to deal with the flows of people. The Home Secretary is absolutely right that that there is such a need on the southern Spanish coast, where hordes of people come into the country from the straits of Tangier and north Africa. The Spanish authorities cannot handle those people. Frankly, they process them and turn them out on to the streets of Spain the following day.
  Finally—I have just asked the Home Secretary to take advice and I am very happy to contribute further—I come to a very effective point that was put to me by the director of the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. None of these people has any status at all in the world. If somebody is a refugee, they will have a passport saying that that is their status, but people who are seekers of asylum have no status. If we were to expect them to have some obligations in return for our giving them a status and papers, we would at a stroke take them out of the hands of the traffickers—the only people with whom they currently have a status—and put them into the hands of a system that could deal with them. I do not claim that that is my idea, but it struck me as an extremely telling point. If we could recognise people as wanting to be either asylum seekers or economic migrants—and if they could put the case for being either—we would have a chance of getting them into the system and processing them. Yes, in some cases, when peace has returned after a decent interval, whether in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone or—let us pray—Sri Lanka, they would have to go back, but a proper interval has to be allowed to ensure that that peace has been tested.
  Mr. David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of interesting points, but will he address the one central point before he concludes his speech? Is his position and that of the Liberal Democrats that we should use some of our negotiating capital in Europe to get a bilateral agreement with France for the return of asylum seekers?
  Simon Hughes: That is a perfectly proper question, and I shall end with a reply to it. I have nothing against trying a bilateral agreement. However, as I said in the recent debate in Westminster Hall, I do not believe that it is the way forward, not for any great theological reasons but because it simply passes the problem down the line or returns to France people who will try to come back again for the reasons that I gave earlier.
  In northern Europe, the Schengen agreement means that there are no border controls and people do not therefore wait at other frontiers. They wait near the channel because we have border controls; Liberal Democrats, like the Conservatives, are in favour of retaining them. However, it means that the problem appears locally, at our frontiers, and nowhere else. Sending people back to France will simply lead to recycling, because they will not disappear. Even if the French could find out whence they entered France, we would simply pass the problem to somewhere else, such as Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium or Luxembourg.
  I understand the argument that a bilateral agreement may not do any harm in the short term, but we need a Europe-wide solution as soon as possible. I have tried to
  624
  offer some practical suggestions about what to do now, such as starting to educate people who get to the edge of the frontiers around the United Kingdom so that they understand the options. We should then deal with them humanely and fairly and help all those who have spent millions of pounds building their fences to realise that all the fences in the world do not change the aspirations of people who have paid $10,000 and travelled from Afghanistan to Calais. Telling such people that they cannot go any further will not persuade them that their journey should end and that they should return home.
  4.46 pm
  Shona McIsaac: I apologise to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for missing some of his opening remarks. I welcome the measured and reasonable tone of the debate. I am sorry to say that the race card was played in the general election campaign, so it is gratifying that pejorative terms such as "bogus asylum seekers" have not been used in today's debate. When people use such terms, and make asylum deeply party political, the only beneficiary is the British National party. There was evidence of that in my constituency in the general election campaign, when race and immigration were raised. I therefore welcome the change in the tone of our debates since the hon. Gentleman took over as shadow Home Secretary.
  The system has difficulties, many of which were acknowledged in the opening speeches and many of which occur in and around Calais because of Sangatte. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that his ultimate goal is the centre's closure, because its existence means that people congregate at the closest crossing point to the United Kingdom.
  I represent a port area. We often talk about Dover and Calais, but I represent Immingham, one of the busiest container ports in Britain. Grimsby is nearby, and Hull is across the river. A huge amount of container traffic comes to Britain via the Netherlands and other countries. We often overlook the problems that are perpetuated at all the gateways to the United Kingdom, not only at Calais. I therefore believe that the debate should move beyond France, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. It is too easy to point the finger at our nearest neighbour, and it is not fair. The Government have been doing their best in difficult circumstances.
  Our close relations with the French have paid off in some respects. We should examine the figures and get away from the screaming headlines about floods of immigrants and the pictures of 500 people storming the tunnel. Between 2000 and 2001, the figures show about a 20 per cent. drop in the number of people crossing illegally to the United Kingdom from France. They also show that about 6,000 people were refused entry and returned to France. It is unfair to cite France as the key to all the problems. There are problems with Sangatte, but France is trying to provide solutions.
  We need tighter controls at Eurostar stations and more UK immigration officers in France, and we must pursue the facilitators and racketeers, mainly from eastern Europe, who congregate in Sangatte and use that route to facilitate the prostitution of very young girls from eastern Europe in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: Trafficking in young women for the purpose of prostitution was debated at length in the

  625
  Council of Europe two weeks ago. Many of the people who enter the country in the backs of lorries and never seek to legitimise their position are women. Some drift into prostitution, while for many that is part of the deal, although they are not told that beforehand. Many others go and work effectively as slave labour, thereby putting employers who pay at least the minimum wage—I am talking here not about prostitution but about legitimate businesses—out of business. Often, those women owe the traffickers a great deal of money and are forced to repay it by working in slave workshops.
  Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Many of the women who end up working as prostitutes for many years are not aware that that is the fate that awaits them when they agree to pay the traffickers many thousands of pounds to take them to western Europe. That is all the more horrific when we consider the age of some of those involved—girls of 13 and 14.
  Simon Hughes: To reinforce what the hon. Lady said about numbers, figures released on Friday show that in January 93 people got through to the UK, but 3,985 people were arrested on the site in northern France and a further 592 were uncovered by the carbon dioxide method of detection. Very many people are stopped, and very few manage to get through the system.
  Shona MeIsaac: I am grateful for those up-to-date figures. We must maintain a balance. The measures that the French have taken are not perfect and more needs to be done, especially in Sangatte, but they have prevented many clandestines from entering the UK.
  The figures for clandestine entrants arriving in the freight shuttle wagons reveal a steady decline. In July 2001, 808 people entered in that way; in October, 133 did so, but by November the figure had fallen to only 40. We have worked with the French authorities, and the action that the French have taken has led to some reduction.
  Legislation ensures that all passengers on Eurostar trains, whatever their destination, have to pass through UK immigration controls before boarding. That is another vital aspect of the debate.
  As I have been trying to demonstrate, I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for West Dorset that appeared in the paper about France being the key, and the core of all our asylum problems. France is a link in an international chain, and the problems are more complex than some people think.
  We have already mentioned the people traffickers, who also often deal in prostitution. One reason why they entered that business is that there is big money to be made from it, and the penalties for people trafficking are far lower than those for other types of smuggling, such as smuggling drugs or guns.
  We must do something about the organised gangs involved in people trafficking. I do not know whether we would have to do that via Europol, or what methods we would have to use, because few of the gangs that operate in Europe and prey on people at Sangatte seem to be based in the UK.
  626
  We must look at the pattern of people arriving in France and trying to get to the UK. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, when people are locked up in a truck, they often do not know where they are heading. They pay their money and are merely dumped somewhere, which creates a lot of problems when we have to decide where to return them. For example, there is a big trade based in the former Yugoslavia, where people pay vast amounts to cross to Italy in a rickety boat and are then taken on in trucks.
  That must be considered in the context of the debate, but we must bear in mind that although only a small number of people get through to the UK, there are 12 million or 13 million refugees in the world, most of whom are in countries neighbouring their home country. We must look for solutions to those problems, and I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have proper accommodation centres in the European Union. That is not up to the British Government to decide, but we could facilitate the idea through the various European institutions, and encourage other European countries to adopt a policy similar to that announced on 29 October in the House—a system of induction, accommodation and removal centres. I understand that there are such centres in the Netherlands, and that although there have been some problems, they are now dying down.
  A site in my constituency is being considered as an accommodation centre. My Cleethorpes constituency, and north-east Lincolnshire itself, has few ethnic people and is a very white community. That is not to say that there has been no immigration, but because the region is to the east of the country, and because of the presence of the former fishing industry, such immigration has consisted of white—for want of a better word—people from Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark.
  I appreciate that such proposals will always cause people concern, but some of their fears are based on myth rather than fact. As I have tried to stress, in discussing what we can do about asylum we must maintain a balance. Stark headlines about floods of immigrants and images of people storming the channel tunnel can often give rise to fears that should not exist. Many people have expressed concern to me about the pressure that dispersal placed on services in north-east Lincolnshire, which was part of the dispersal system. If the new system of accommodation centres takes the pressure off local authorities, it should be explored.
  We must demonstrate compassion and humanity in this debate, because there are real-life stories behind the headlines. As elected representatives, we have probably heard about the horrors that some families have been through; indeed, it is impossible to imagine how they have survived those experiences. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said in the debate on 29 October, it is one of the British state's highest duties to offer a safe haven to those fleeing persecution, and we have a long and honourable tradition of doing so. I hope that we maintain that tradition—but without resorting to pejorative language and screaming headlines.
  I am gratified that today's debate has been constructive and I hope that it will continue to be so, but blaming France is not the answer. This is an international problem that requires international solutions through working with European countries and other countries around the world.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the United Nations convention on refugees—the international law that has underpinned the policies of successive Governments of both major British political parties, and which has commanded the almost universal support of all democratic politicians in that time. Indeed, one striking feature of several debates on asylum in the past few years is that although there have been occasional heated disagreements between Members on both sides of the House about asylum policy, there has been a common wish to uphold and defend the convention and its underlying principles.
  As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said in her concluding remarks, it is the duty of a country that claims to be civilised to offer a safe haven to people who are genuinely fleeing persecution. However, if that convention and those principles are to be successfully defended and upheld, it is of the utmost importance that we are seen to have a fair and efficient system for handling asylum claims, at both the European and national level. Our normal requirements of immigration control must not be evaded—all too often they are—by people claiming asylum in order to extend their stay or establish themselves for a considerable number of years, if not permanently.
  If I had a disagreement with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, it was that at times I felt that in her understandable wish to express reassurance, she underestimated the scale of the problem in this country and the genuine nature of public concern about it. Each year, about 90,000 people come quite lawfully as immigrants to settle permanently in the United Kingdom. In 2000, there were about 80,000 applications for asylum. Those applications were made by the head of the household, and if we include dependants we realise that the figure was somewhat larger. The number of applications for asylum roughly equates to the yearly number of lawful applications to settle in this country, which poses a significant challenge to the integrity of our immigration controls and to our ability fairly and honestly to implement the 1951 United Nations convention, as we would wish it to be implemented.
  The greatest danger from an organisation such as the British National party—and the history of Europe in the 20th century bears out my contention—arises when democratic politicians of the left, right or centre appear indifferent to or ignore the genuine concerns of the electorate whom they represent. We must be careful about the language that we use and the policies that we advocate, but we must clearly show that we recognise that public concern springs from much more than racist caricatures; it springs from deep-seated worries about the scale of the applications for asylum.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has had much experience of Home Office matters. Does he agree that it would be reasonable for those who seek asylum here or anywhere else in the EU to put their case outside the country to which they were seeking to travel? People would not then have to break into countries before being
  628
  able to put their case. Instead, they could apply from somewhere that was safe, without being required to make it to the country where they wanted to end up.
  Mr. Lidington: It is perfectly sensible for us to explore how such an idea would work in practice. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will look at such matters over the next couple of years.
  A number of difficult practical issues would have to be addressed if we were to adopt the approach advocated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).
  As the hon. Gentleman has often and rightly said, the number of refugees and asylum seekers throughout the world is large by historical standards. Sadly, it continues to grow. It is difficult to see how any quota system could match the number of people who might wish to migrate to a western or northern country in which they and their families would be safer and might legitimately hope to have a better chance of material prosperity. We should have to engage with some awkward practical questions if we followed through on the hon. Gentleman's idea.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for bringing this matter before the House. I have no doubt that a new bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and France would be a useful tool that would help us to deal effectively with the problem of handling asylum applications, but I do not think that it would be a panacea. I agreed with the point made by the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) that as soon as an asylum law loophole is closed, people—particularly among the organised gangs that are well supplied with lawyers—find a new loophole to exploit.
  In a world of mass migration, in which international communications mean that millions of people in poor countries know about the greater opportunities for prosperity and security in western Europe and north America, and in a world of great disorder, there is unlikely to be a permanent solution to this problem in the foreseeable future. It will remain an issue that successive Governments will have to seek to manage as best they can in this and other countries.
  None the less, the measure advocated by my hon. Friend would help. The Library note on asylum shopping tells us that between January and August 2001, just under 7,300 applications for asylum were made by people arriving from France at Dover or Waterloo. That figure is clearly at the bottom end of the true figure: it cannot, by definition, include those who came from France and claimed asylum after having arrived, either because they went to the authorities or because they were detected and then made a claim. Nor does that figure include those who may have come from France, by whatever means, and vanished without trace.
  We have heard about the enormous pressure on rail operators. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I welcome the Home Secretary's common-sense decision to lift the civil penalty from Eurotunnel and EWS. However, even if the figures for those who apply at port of entry from France have fallen in recent months, and even if the majority of would-be applicants are stopped in France before they ever reach the UK, we cannot believe that everything in the garden

  629
  is fine. There is huge financial pressure on those rail operators: Eurotunnel estimated that the cost of disruption last year was £20 million.
  Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who, in this debate, has suggested that everything in the garden is fine? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that there are problems that need to be addressed.
  Mr. Lidington: I take the hon. Lady's point. Everybody has admitted that there are problems that need to be addressed. However, it is not enough to argue—as has been argued during the debate—that, because the majority of people who want to seek asylum in this country are, it is claimed, being stopped on the French side of the channel, that should cause us to relax our attention to the issues. We need to ask why large numbers of young men go to Sangatte to live in the dreadful conditions described by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. An advantage of the bilateral agreement is not only that it would provide a means for the swifter and more effective return to France of applicants whose claim was unfounded, but that its existence—and its effectiveness, once it was established—would act as a deterrent to others who were tempted to follow that course of action.
  There appears to be no legal or treaty barrier to the British Government taking such an initiative. Reference has already been made to the bilateral agreement between Germany and Denmark, which operates in tandem with the Dublin convention. The Government are certainly right to say—as the Under-Secretary did in the debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January—that the politics of that agreement are different. That agreement boils down to the fact that Germany recognises that the problem is primarily hers and accepts the responsibility for preventing its export in large measure to Denmark. That gives rise to the question of how seriously the French Government take their responsibility not to export their problem to the United Kingdom.
  Let us look elsewhere in Europe—not at a full member but at an applicant member of the European Union. According to a report published by the Select Committee on Home Affairs about a year ago, people crossing from the Czech Republic to Germany are returned, without the question of asylum being raised or given substantial consideration, because under German law the Czech Republic is deemed a safe country. Although I stand to be corrected if the Minister has more up-to-date information, I am not aware of any proposal that that arrangement should be rescinded if the Czech Republic in due course becomes a full member of the EU.
  Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Czech Republic as a "safe" country, but is he not aware that the Czech Roma are being driven out of the democratic Czech Republic, having survived under communism and under the Nazis?
  Mr. Peter Lilley: They are being driven out by the Slovaks.
  Mr. Lidington: I am aware of the allegations that have been made although, as my right hon. Friend reminds us,
  630
  those allegations are more usually made about the Slovak than the Czech authorities. However, if the Czech Republic cannot be trusted as a guardian of civil liberty and human rights, what on earth are we doing saying that the Czech Republic should be—as it is—a full member of the Council of Europe, or that it should be admitted to the European Union? If it were a member of the EU it would, presumably, participate in the pan-European arrangements that the Government are proposing. There is a broader question as to how we treat European countries whose respect for human rights we nominally acknowledge through our participation with them in the Council of Europe and the EU.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: The Czech Republic is already a member of the Council of Europe and has been for some time. However, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is right: the country has a terrible track record on its treatment of the Roma. The Roma leave the country because of that and many of them come to the UK as refugees. I imagine that that will continue, whether or not the Czech Republic joins the EU.
  Mr. Lidington: I do not want to have a long discussion about the Czech Republic, but the point is that a country has to sign the European convention on human rights to become a member of the Council of Europe. If a remedy has to be sought against the Czech Republic, or any other member of the Council of Europe, that should be done by applying the ECHR, to which that country has subscribed.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I want to return my hon. Friend to the point that he was making previously—the comparison between ourselves and France, as opposed to Denmark and Germany. The German understanding is that, overwhelmingly, Germany is the first safe country entered by those who travel to Denmark. The French contention is that that is not necessarily the case. However, given the absence of border controls in the Schengen group of countries, should not those countries collectively realise that such refugees will have entered one of them as the first safe country? Should not those countries begin to negotiate with us on that basis to share burdens?
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution, and it certainly would fit logically with the Schengen members' conception of their own political arrangements, with a common area for immigration, asylum and, increasingly, criminal justice arrangements.
  I said earlier that I felt at times there had been a lack of urgency in tackling the issue on both sides of the channel. The Home Secretary referred in his speech to recent French legislation to make it easier to carry out immigration checks on certain cross-channel routes. I have obviously not been able to leave the Chamber to check the facts since hearing his speech, but if my memory is correct, we in this country made good our side of that agreement about 12 months ago, under a statutory instrument that was briefly debated in Committee. If almost a further year has elapsed before such legislation has been implemented on the French side of the channel, some questions remain. I am happy to give way to the Minister if she wishes to correct me.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be confused. The Home Secretary referred in his speech to a change in French domestic legislation, which comes into effect today and ensures that United Kingdom immigration officers can control all passengers who board UK-bound train services that travel through France. That change in law will close the Paris-Calais loophole. It is entirely beneficial, and we are very grateful to the French for changing their domestic law to allow that to happen.
  Mr. Lidington: I do not deny that that change is beneficial, but I wonder whether such a change could not have been introduced more speedily.
  Let us consider the position this side of the channel. In July 1998, the Government published a White Paper on asylum and immigration, entitled "Fairer, Faster and Firmer", which stated:
  "There is a common appreciation among most Member States that the Convention"—
  the Dublin convention—
  "is not working as it should."
  The White Paper continued:
  "The Government—
  the present Administration—
  "made the operation of the Convention a key priority for the United Kingdom's Presidency of the EU, which ended in June 1998. The Government secured agreement to a comprehensive programme of action designed to improve the operation of the Convention, and is committed to work with our European partners in that task."
  It is now three and a half years since the publication of that White Paper, which would have been drafted and framed shortly before July 1998, but the Government do not yet show the degree of urgency that is justified by the circumstances that we now face.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seven years elapsed not just between the negotiation but the signing of the Dublin convention and its coming into force? By that standard, we are operating really fast.
  Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Lady looks back at what is becoming rather ancient history, she will see that there were problems with the ratification of the Dublin convention because one or two other signatories had fairly profound objections that needed to be sorted out before the convention could proceed to ratification. My point is that there was an acceptance by the Government, very early in their term of office, that the Dublin convention was proving ineffective, and a declaration that their concerns about the convention in practice were shared by the majority of their EU partners. Against that background, the progress to date has been tardy.
  Last September, the Home Secretary met his counterpart, Mr. Vaillant, the French Interior Minister. The package of measures that were agreed seemed, to my eyes, somewhat ambitious. It was agreed that British officials should go to Sangatte and, with French support, try to deter would-be migrants. It was agreed that both countries would take action to persuade would-be refugees to seek asylum in the first country of arrival.
  632
  I do not know whether the video to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred was the fruit of that summit meeting—
  Simon Hughes: It was.
  Mr. Lidington: If that video was the outcome of that meeting, I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, she will tell us a little about what those initiatives, about which the Government made much at the time of the summit, have meant in practice over the last few months. I also hope that she will be able to flesh out the comments that she made at the conclusion of the debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January about a successor to the Dublin convention now existing in draft. Will she give some indication of the content of the draft convention, and of the time scale for its introduction and implementation?
  Both the motion and the Government amendment recognise that the issue of migrants coming to the United Kingdom from France is intimately bound up with the overall effectiveness of our asylum system. Why are many thousands of young men going to Sangatte with the sole objective—which they declare themselves—of using it as a base to reach the United Kingdom? As other hon. Members have said, it is partly due to the attraction of the English language, and partly due to the existence of communities in this country who are willing to provide support to compatriots who come to Britain. However, it is also due to the fact that many of those young men know that, once they reach here, effective action to remove them if their claim is unfounded is unlikely or, if it happens, is likely to be delayed for a long time.
  Last year, after visiting Sangatte and exploring the question in considerable detail, the Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that administrative and legal measures in the United Kingdom made an appreciable difference to the readiness of applicants and people smugglers to try their luck in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere. If we look back at the history—the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the introduction of the bilateral agreement in 1995, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the court ruling in 1996 that significantly weakened the effectiveness of the arrangements introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—we see that the number of people applying for asylum in the United Kingdom has altered over the years as a consequence of different Acts of Parliament, administrative actions and judicial rulings. In that context, I have three questions for the Minister on the operation of the system and whether she believes it adequately deters people such as those who live in Sangatte.
  My first question is on initial asylum decisions. I welcome the fact that the backlog is down to about 43,000, but it is still far too high. What concerns me is that a large proportion of decisions are refusals on non-compliance grounds, perhaps because not all sections of the form have been filled in or it has been returned to the Home Office late. In 2001, 17 to 20 per cent. of all Home Office decisions were refusals on those grounds alone. Although that is down on the high 25 to 30 per cent. total of 2000, it represents a massive increase on the 3 per cent. of such decisions in 1999.
  Can the Minister explain what is going on? Is it the case that people who are not genuinely fleeing persecution and who vanish into the community are not bothering to

  633
  return their forms properly completed, because that would be cause for concern; or is it that people who have an arguable case for asylum are struggling to fill in unfamiliar forms in a strange language, because that would mean that the improvement in initial decisions as reflected in Home Office statistics conceals the fact that the substantive determination of such cases is being shunted down the line to the appeals system and not being dealt with by the Department in the first instance?
  My second question relates to appeals. Home Office figures for the third quarter of last year show that it received more than 16,500 appeals, but, as only 10,950 were determined, about 5,500 were added to the backlog. There was also a big increase over the 2000 figures in the proportion of appeals that were allowed by the adjudicators. What does that mean? Either the adjudicators are taking a softer line, which I find difficult to credit, or there are serious doubts about the quality of decisions taken by the Home Office at initial determination and the adjudicators are feeling obliged to reverse them in a greater number of cases.
  My third question is on removals. A bilateral agreement with France will work only if we have an effective system for removing people when we decide that they are not entitled to remain here. The number of removals of failed asylum seekers was lower in each quarter of 2001 than in the corresponding quarter of 2000. Although more than 75,000 people were refused asylum in 2000, only 8,900 were removed from this country. There are still questions to be answered about the state of our domestic asylum system. Getting that right is an essential counterpart to the sort of international agreement that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset advocates.
  Looking back to the preface to the 1998 White Paper, written in the name of the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I find it ironic that it says:
  "Despite the dedication and professionalism of immigration staff at all levels, the system has become too complex and too slow and huge backlogs have developed. Perversely, it is often the genuine applicants who have suffered, whilst abusive claimants and racketeers have profited. The cost to the taxpayer has been substantial and is increasing."
  I am sorry to have to say that little seems to have changed in the four years since the former Home Secretary wrote those remarks.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends' motion represents a constructive start to building a fairer, faster, firmer and more effective and trustworthy system of asylum, which will enable us to discharge our responsibilities under the United Nations convention.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I have been tempted to do so by the fact that, in the main, it has been constructive. That makes a pleasant change from some of the asylum and immigration debates that I have sat through here over the past few years.
  The debate has not been 100 per cent. constructive. I know that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did not say that everything that had gone wrong had been since 1997, but he got close at times. I
  634
  think that I am the only Member who served on each of the Committees that considered what became the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On every one, the Minister concerned told us how the legislation would provide all the solutions to the asylum system. I treated the Bills in the same even-handed, objective way: I voted against all three of them. It looks as though I might have the opportunity in a few weeks to consider my attitude to the 2002 legislation.
  It has sometimes been implied in the debate— to some extent, the motion implies it—that the United Kingdom shoulders an unfair burden in comparison with other European Union countries. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, that is not so. Between 1997 and 1999—the last complete set of figures across the EU that I have seen—there were twice as many asylum seekers in Germany as there were in the UK. Certainly when measured against population, we come nowhere near the top of the league. Figures obviously vary from year to year, but in most years we are probably eighth or ninth in the number of asylum seekers per head of population.
  To suggest, as has been frequently suggested in the debate, that a bilateral approach with France would go a significant way towards making big changes is to take a very narrow view. I understand the arguments about closing Sangatte, but let us look back at why it opened in the first place. It was because there were large numbers of people on the streets of Calais and neighbouring towns who, exactly like those now in Sangatte, had every intention of trying to make their way to the UK.
  We perhaps ought to have learned some of the lessons of the past 10 or 20 years, in that policies that are simply based on putting up barriers will not work. Each change that has done that has not worked. I know that numbers fell between 2000 and 2001, but it has been claimed today that since 1997, there has been an increase in the number of people coming to the UK from France who could otherwise have claimed asylum in France. However, that change is just one that has occurred since 1997. At the same time, we have changed carriers' liability and put airline liaison officers in many overseas countries whose specific job is to stop people getting on to planes to come directly to the UK. As I said, when one route is closed, people try to find another. We should not assume that putting up ever higher barriers will solve the problems.
  In the past couple of years, significant changes have taken place within the EU, involving not only Britain and France, but other EU countries. Moves have been made toward a common asylum policy across Europe. The 1999 Amsterdam treaty made immigration and asylum policy an EU competence for the first time. There is provision enabling the UK to opt out, but I think that we should be closely involved in those discussions, because it is foolish to think that if common asylum or immigration policies were achieved across other EU countries, the UK could stand outside with different procedures and standards.
  I appreciate that the hon. Member for West Dorset would encounter problems with some of his Back-Bench colleagues if he tried to suggest that EU-wide agreements were desirable. He therefore tries to limit the debate to France.
  Mr. Letwin: I hesitate to strip away an illusion, but the Conservatives would be delighted with a more EU-wide

  635
  agreement. We welcome Dublin II and the prospect of the shared burden being distributed more evenly. The problem is that it might take years. The question is not whether multilateral agreement is a good idea, but whether it might be worth trying in the meantime to reinstate a bilateral agreement as one helpful approach.
  Mr. Gerrard: I am not sure that all the measures would take as long as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am glad that he agrees that we should seek wider agreement—most people welcome in principle moves towards harmonisation of asylum policies across the EU.
  There is danger in the fact that the debate so far has focused on harmonisation rather than on the more important issue of standards. We have focused far too much on how to get policies to converge, rather than on what the policies should be and what the aims of EU-wide policies should be.
  Despite the fact that the tone of today's debate has been mainly constructive, I am worried. If the attitude of every EU country is to say, "We want common standards, agreement and harmonisation, but we also want fewer people coming to our country to claim asylum," we will never reach agreement, and no progress will he made. The debate is couched in terms of wanting harmonisation and agreements—bilaterally with France, and perhaps multilaterally involving other countries—but at its root is the desire for fewer people to come to the UK to apply for asylum. If every EU country adopts a similar attitude, we will either get nowhere or end up with a policy that does not work.
  I was interested in some of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about how we might examine the issue of applications made from another country. I strongly agree with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), although it was greeted with scepticism by some hon. Members. Factors such as knowledge of a particular language, or family connections, or friends who are already asylum seekers or recognised refugees, have a great influence on an asylum seeker who is deciding the appropriate point at which to make an application.
  There are so many complex factors of that nature involved in the process that I find it difficult to envisage the "first safe country" concept ever really working, whatever arrangements along the lines of the Dublin agreement are reached. There are those who flee wars and end up in a neighbouring first safe country but when people travel halfway round the world to come to the European Union, I seriously doubt whether a policy based purely on first safe country will achieve the results that some people wish.
  Mr. Lansley: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great experience in these matters but is he not falling into the trap of confusing asylum policy and immigration policy, as if they were not separate matters? At the heart of asylum policy must be the concept that those who seek asylum are genuine refugees. Therefore, the first safe country principle must have a role to play in that when someone has left a place where he is in fear of persecution or risks losing his life, the first safe place that he comes to is a valid country in which to claim asylum, even if it is not his final place of residence.
  Mr. Gerrard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's last couple of words are an acknowledgement that there may
  636
  be family connections and family ties, which presently are not recognised. I recently met an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka who had been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. He has family members who have been given refugee status in Switzerland. However, it is impossible in the EU for that family to come together. That strikes me as ludicrous. Different countries have recognised different members of the same family, but there is no mechanism to bring them together within the EU. We need to go beyond saying that the first safe country is the only thing that matters.
  It is highly unlikely that any of us in this place will have to seek asylum. However, if I were in that position, I am not sure that France would be the first country to which I would want to go to live. That is not because I have anything against the French. I would think about language and where I might have a friend or relative whom I might want to reach.
  We shall have to consider gateways from other countries. During the Kosovo crisis, the humanitarian evacuation programme brought people who had gone from Kosovo to Macedonia to the UK and other EU countries. But only in major crises have we tried to operate mechanisms to allow approaches through an organisation such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in another country. We must think about such situations if we want seriously to deal with traffickers and cut their routes.
  As long as we erect barrier after barrier, someone will always be trying to find their way round them. He or she will try to make money by doing so and bringing in people illegally. I hope that we shall start to think about mechanisms that will allow people from other countries to make applications rather than causing them to try to smuggle themselves through the channel tunnel, for example.
  We must remember that the UN convention on refugees does not let us say that we must regard someone as a bogus asylum seeker or failed asylum seeker because he has come to this country illegally. The present position is that it is virtually impossible to come to the UK legally to make an application.
  When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes his White Paper, I hope that that will allow us to have a sensible debate on some of the wider issues. The debate must not focus on a narrow bilateral question but consider what happens throughout the EU. We must consider the links between asylum and immigration policy and economic migration. We have started to have that debate today. I hope that we can develop it when the White Paper is published in the same constructive tone that has characterised much of this afternoon's debate.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for rescuing this subject from the comparative obscurity of Westminster Hall, where I raised it early last week, and introducing it in the Chamber, where it is assured of a blaze of publicity and packed Benches—at least for his speech. I am glad that my hon. Friend has done so, and that he adopted a positive and constructive tone which has infected most of the subsequent speeches. There was however a degree of complacency in the Government's response, which is reflected in their amendment.

  637
  It is generally accepted that the flow of asylum seekers to this country represents a significant part of a major problem. I do not want to repeat in the Chamber what I said in Westminster Hall, but we must reaffirm what we mean by the problem, which is not about individual asylum seekers. In so far as they are genuine asylum seekers genuinely seeking refuge from persecution elsewhere, Members on both sides of the House endorse and accept our responsibility to take them into this country and give them the security that they need. Even in so far as they are economic migrants who constitute a great proportion of those who come here allegedly seeking asylum, we should respect the fact that they are trying to do their best for their families. They often come from impoverished and troubled countries and, by definition, they have shown themselves to be entrepreneurial and ambitious even to have got here in the first place. As individuals, they could no doubt make a sizeable contribution to this country.
  The problem is one of numbers. We cannot be a country of unlimited immigration, and must therefore limit the number of those who come here; we must try simply to meet our obligation to those who are genuine refugees and perhaps, beyond that, those who are given exceptional leave to remain. We must restrict and prohibit entry for those who are not true asylum seekers.
  There is plenty of evidence available to all of us that the flow from France is a major part of the problem. There are continual newspaper stories of people being discovered in the back of lorries; people waiting in the Sangatte camp and repeatedly trying to get in; large numbers of people trying to break into the tunnel at Christmas; and gangs trying to rig the signals so that people can get on the trains before they reach the tunnel. All those stories provide qualitative evidence of a sizeable problem. The quantitative evidence, however, is less clear. The Government amendment cites the figures for 2000 and 2001, when 13,500 and 11,000 would-be asylum seekers, respectively, came here illegally from France.
  Those figures are puzzling. First, why did the Government just give us figures comparing 2001 with 2000? Our debate is about the situation between 1995 and 1997, and whether we could replicate and reproduce it if we restored the bilateral agreement that obtained then. Will the Minister give us the figures, comparable to those that the Government gave for 2000 and 2001, that applied during 1995, 1996 and 1997? The Government amendment says that there was a 20 per cent. reduction between 2000 and 2001, which is obviously welcome. It then says that
  "the number of clandestine entrants was reduced by 27 per cent. in 2001".
  Can the Minister tell us the distinction between the number of people crossing illegally into the United Kingdom, which showed a drop of almost 20 per cent., and the number of clandestine entrants, which showed a drop of almost 27 per cent. in 2001? Is there a distinction that we need to know about? We also need to be told whether either category—illegal entrants or clandestine entrants—is the whole story? Do not a number come here legally, then claim asylum? In addition, are there not people who come illegally, but about whom we subsequently know nothing? And are there not people who claim asylum, but we do not know which route they took?
  638
  Are there not also dependants of claimants, since the practice is simply to give the number of claims, not the number of people covered by those claims? In addition, are there not people who will subsequently be brought here as dependants of claimants? Once people are given the right to stay here they ask, not surprisingly, whether their dependants can join them. We need to know those figures in more detail if we are to understand the size of the problem constituted by the flow of people from France to this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset rightly pointed to the fact that we had a bilateral agreement between 1995 and 1997. So far as I know, no one denies that it was pretty effective. It may not have been 100 per cent. effective; it did not seal this country hermetically and stop the flow of immigration from France. However, it was effective and gave us the capability to return people either within 24 hours or, if we lodged a statement that we might have difficulty doing so within that period, within seven days. In certain circumstances there was a month's further grace, if I understand the agreement correctly.
  If the agreement was effective then, why cannot it be renewed now? A number of reasons have been given by the Minister and the Home Secretary. The first is that France will not agree. But France agreed in 1995 or, to be precise, the agreement was drafted in 1994 and came into force in 1995. France continued to agree, even though it had the right to resile from the agreement with a month's notice. Indeed, it continued to agree with terms that did not lapse when the Dublin convention came into force. Are the Government saying that our influence over our French friends and partners is less now than it was then? Are they saying so despite the fact that, in the interim, they have made many unilateral concessions to our partners in the European Union, including signing up to the Amsterdam treaty, unilaterally agreeing the social chapter, and agreeing with the French to co-sponsor a European rapid reaction force? All those unilateral changes, we were told, would increase our influence and take it to previously unknown heights. If that is the case, why cannot that influence now bring about something that we could achieve in 1994 and 1995?
  The Government argue that everything was stopped by the Dublin convention; the agreement was superseded by the convention, so we cannot rely on bilateral agreements any longer. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is not the case. Germany and Denmark have, subsequent to the Dublin convention, entered into a bilateral arrangement. We are told that Germany is different from France; it is in a different geographical location, which means that, more frequently than France, it is the first place of entry into the community; and more people have made a claim there before making a claim in Denmark. All those things were true in 1995; the relative geography of France and Germany has not changed since 1995, and the arrangements have remained rigidly in place. What was possible in 1995 must surely be possible now.
  The Minister has also said that the agreement was not much use because action had to be taken within 24 hours, which has become more difficult. I am glad that some of the difficulties created by the courts have subsequently been overridden by legislation introduced by the Government, which specifies that the courts cannot treat France or Germany as unsafe countries, in the sense given

  639
  in the Geneva convention. That would make it easier for us automatically to return people within 24 hours if we restored the agreement and renegotiated bilaterally.
  I repeat to the Under-Secretary, who has the misfortune of facing me once again, the questions that I put to her in the previous debate and which she did not answer. Have the Government tried to renegotiate the bilateral agreement? If so, when, where, with whom and on what terms? Why was it refused? As all of us are more interested in the future than in the past, an even more important question is whether the Government will try in future.
  The Home Secretary made the legitimate point that the French are facing elections and that, in the immediate run-up to an election, it is more difficult to get an agreement with them. That may or may not be true, but may we at least have an assurance that once those elections are out of the way, the Government will not rule out trying once again to resume the bilateral arrangement with the French, or something like it?
  A characteristically thoughtful and even more characteristically lengthy and unfocused speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches failed to address the question whether there should be a bilateral agreement. When pressed on the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the view of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was that there was no point. If we sent people back, they would keep trying to enter the country, so we might as well let them in in the first place. That was the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position.
  That highlights an important point. We must ask why the United Kingdom is so attractive to so many people who, having got to France—a country which I love and in which I would willingly spend more time, if the House would allow me—do not want to stay there, but want to come to this country. Theoretically, under the terms of the Geneva convention and the obligation of those seeking asylum to seek it in the first safe country to which they come, the United Kingdom should, for that reason and because it is an island, probably have the smallest flow of asylum seekers of any major country in Europe. Instead, it has the highest proportion of asylum seekers per head of any major country, though not as high as some smaller countries, such as Ireland—that is even more strange, as reaching it requires crossing two stretches of water—and Denmark.
  Why, then, is the UK so attractive? It is not just language; it is not just the generosity of our benefits. I have made it clear in the past that our benefit levels are not supremely generous, compared with those often available on the continent. It is not just because jobs are relatively available in the UK, although that obviously is a factor. When one asks asylum seekers, they say, and all the surveys show, that it is because they know that when they get to this country, they face the least likelihood of being returned to their country of origin.
  That is demonstrated by figures quoted in one of the court cases, which was held to prove that France was not a safe country and the UK was. Five per cent. of claimants who come to the UK seeking asylum from Algeria are returned to Algeria, and 80 per cent. of those from Algeria seeking asylum in France are returned to Algeria. There
  640
  is a great disparity between the likelihood of their being returned once they get to the UK, and the likelihood of their being returned from other countries.
  That has not come about intentionally or wilfully. The House did not decide to make this the most attractive country in Europe for economic migrants. It has come about by accident, because we moved from a system that was essentially administrative to one which was put in the hands of the courts. In so doing, we have effectively extended to every inhabitant of the globe who can find his way to these shores the right, once he has done so, not just to seek asylum, but during the period of seeking asylum, to obtain benefits; after six months, to obtain a job; after refusal, to appeal; after the appeal being turned down, to seek a judicial review; and after the judicial review failing, to seek remedy under the Human Rights Act. By that time the person will have been here so long that he will have put down roots in this country, become part of the community, perhaps have married and probably have had children.
  The people who come to my surgery expressing generally racist views about asylum seekers one day will come the next day about Mohammed who lives next door, whom they want to stay because he has been here five years already, he is part of the community and a member of the parent-teacher association, his children go to the same school as their own, they like him, he is a good chap, and they worship in the same church, or whatever. They are right, of course. It would be inhumane to send such people back, and it becomes increasingly inhumane the longer they have stayed in this country and the deeper their roots are.
  Effectively, we have created a system for ourselves under which we cannot send people back because the whole process takes too long. They know it, so they come here and will go to great lengths to come here, including running great risks and facing great dangers to do so, because once here, they are pretty confident that they will not have to return.
  We know, although no one expresses it with as much bluntness as I perhaps can, now that I am on the Back Benches, that there are only two ways to solve the problem. One is to make the UK a less attractive place for economic migrants and asylum seekers to stay. The other is to make it a more difficult place for people to stay.
  The options for making the UK less attractive include those which apply in the period during which people may not take a job—the experiment tried by the previous Home Secretary and scrapped by the present Home Secretary to introduce voucher payments instead of benefits, and the changes that I introduced to the benefits system, which meant that if people had entered the country with a visa, to get which they had had to convince the visa authorities that they had the means to support themselves, they would not be entitled to benefits.
  All those measures were designed to make the UK a less pleasant place for asylum seekers to be. On the whole, I would prefer not to rely on such methods, even though I was responsible for one of those that I mentioned. I would prefer to make it legally more difficult for people to exploit all the loopholes in our legal system to stay in the UK when they are essentially economic migrants, not asylum seekers.
  Bob Russell: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Home Office figures which show that people born outside the UK, including asylum seekers, contribute 10 per cent.

  641
  more to the economy in taxes and national insurance than they consume in benefits, which is worth about £2.5 billion a year to the British economy?
  Mr. Lilley: I will not comment on the figures, most of which are pretty dubious, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's general point, which I made earlier. As individuals, not just genuine asylum seekers but economic migrants can make a positive contribution to this country. However, I do not believe, and I should be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman and his party believe, that we can open up the country to unlimited immigration. We cannot—there must be some restriction.
  The number of asylum seekers coming to the UK last year approached 100,000, taking into account their dependants. The vast majority will stay, under our present arrangements. That equates to the population of my constituency. It means that every year we will have to house the equivalent of the population of my constituency. One of the great issues in my constituency is the constraint on housing and building in the green belt. I would be hypocritical in the extreme if I said that all those people should be allowed to come into the country as they would make a wonderful contribution to the economy, but that we would not provide extra houses for them, or extra towns or settlements.
  We cannot have it both ways. Not being a Liberal Democrat, I will not even try to have it both ways. We must accept that we have to make this country less pleasant in terms of the magnets of attraction, or less easy for people to stay in by exploiting legal loopholes. We need to review the way in which the Geneva convention has been enshrined in law, rather than the process of dealing with asylum seekers being essentially an administrative one, relying on a judgment of officials which will inevitably prove fallible and difficult.
  The reason is that, ultimately, the courts cannot, while meeting the usual standards that we require of them, assess what happened in a distant country on the basis of evidence supplied by the people who are coming here. It is nonsense to suggest that we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that such people have no case or that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have a strong case. An assessment must be made as to whether they are genuine asylum seekers, but ultimately it cannot be made to the normal, rigorous standards that would apply in the court in relation to events that happened in this country.
  We must also realise that the process of dealing with asylum seekers has specific problems. I had to look into the matter in some detail when I was Secretary of State for Social Security. My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary and I conducted an analysis—it was carried out by my officials and his—of the whole process. We established that there was a series of bottlenecks, arising in respect of initial asylum applications, appeals, judicial reviews, further appeals and deportation and removal orders. All the effort of the bureaucracy tends to be spent on widening the bottlenecks that are already widest, but as anyone who has ever understood process engineering will know, that is the wrong way of going about things. One should try to widen the narrowest bottleneck first. In this case, that is the process of removal and deportation. Until we enhance and speed up that process and reduce
  642
  the length of the pipeline—the period between an initial claim and liability for deportation and removal—we will not solve that problem, or at least we would be able do so only by taking the less humane approach of making this country less attractive for people to live in. I do not think anybody in the House would like to do that.
  I hope that the Government will take the small step that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pressed upon them so eloquently and endeavour to renew the bilateral agreement. In the longer term, I hope that they will look to see whether we need more fundamental changes in the process and the legal structures through which we handle the asylum problem, if we are to gain some control of it in future.
  6.12 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome this very reasonable-sounding debate. I hope it is a sign that the approach that the Opposition adopted on asylum during the election campaign—certainly in my constituency—is now behind them. The issue was used to create fear among residents in an attempt to generate support for the Conservatives, but I am glad to say that it was unsuccessful, and I hope that such tawdry exploitation of people's genuine anxieties about the way in which asylum is administered will be a thing of the past.
  I also hope that the positive tone of the debate reflects a recognition that such discussion cannot be based on the assumption that the presence of one extra asylum seeker is inevitably a problem. Such assumptions have always damaged the debate on asylum and immigration in Britain. Let us not forget that Einstein was a refugee, or that many of the most entrepreneurial and dynamic communities in Britain started their lives here as refugee communities and have contributed hugely to Britain's success and international reputation in many different fields. We should celebrate that. The tolerant character of this country in welcoming people who flee persecution is one of our great strengths, and we should be proud of it.
  I fear that, in trying to present itself as being very reasonable, the Conservative party is portraying an issue that I think of as a matchbox lid as a vast set of gates comparable to those at St. Stephen's entrance. Although better bilateral arrangements with France could make some difference to the number of people seeking access to Britain to claim asylum, let us not pretend that it would make a huge difference. Such an assumption would once again contribute to the sort of misinformation that has dogged debates on asylum.
  What would most improve the situation in terms of the numbers of applicants and of the way in which we deal with asylum applications? The answer is pretty straightforward. More than anything else, we must improve the speed and integrity of the current system. I know that the one-stop appeal introduced under the most recent legislation was an attempt to reduce delays, but it was established on top of a failing administrative system. The current delays benefit only bogus applicants. Some people are making bogus claims, and are aware that they are doing so. It is they who benefit hugely from bad administration, lost files and delays. We must remind ourselves constantly that that is the case. I hope that in his statement later this week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make proposals that put speed, efficiency and integrity back into the asylum system.

  643
  I was both depressed and amused to hear the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) tell the Minister about an Afghan who had sought asylum in his constituency in 1999 but had received no decision. I felt like sending a note to my office asking for details of a bunch of cases in which people have been here for a decade without receiving a decision. I promise hon. Members that it is possible to find such cases. Before this debate, I looked at the cases of the people who have come to see me in the past week about asylum claims, as well as the letters that I have received in that time. One letter from the Minister said that I was slightly wrong in connection with a point that I had made to her about a constituent who has been served with a notice of decision. I was glad to receive the letter, but in the meantime another development had occurred. I had been trying to ensure that my constituent's case was considered with her husband's. That did not happen. Her husband was given asylum and she was again refused it in the letter with which she has now been properly served.
  Similar examples of failure in the administrative system are common. At my advice surgery on Friday, I spoke to a Sri Lankan family who appealed in May 1997, before I was elected as Member of Parliament for Slough. Their decision was received in June 1998, so it took more than a year for it to be promulgated. It gave them asylum. The husband received his status letter confirming the decision in July 2000, but his wife and children have still not had that notification, even though I have been re-elected in the meantime. Those examples are not extreme—I picked them because they were recent—but they illustrate problems that have developed over time and that are so serious that they in turn create new problems.
  A properly administered decision-making system is more important than an agreement with France. Expert decision makers should operate early in the system, thus leading to fewer stupid decisions, such as refusals because of out-of-time returns of applications, to which other hon. Members have referred. The quality of initial decisions should be good so that adjudicators do not overturn so many decisions. The system should enable us to recognise genuine refugees early and reduce delays for them.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Lady share our hope that the forthcoming White Paper will propose to include in accommodation centres, or even reception centres, a full suite of the experts, ranging from doctors and lawyers to decision makers and adjudicators, who are required to make on-the-spot, effective decisions, for the sake of those who try to get into the country because of dire circumstances?
  Fiona Mactaggart: If the hon. Gentleman reads the question that I asked when the Home Secretary made a statement several months ago, he will realise that I made the point that there should be proper advice in reception centres. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend make the same point in Question Time today. I am not sure whether adjudicators are needed in reception centres, but expert advice is required to enable people to present their best case. Adjudication is not necessary in the first week, but we need to ensure that people can present the best case and that the decision makers have sufficient training, autonomy and sense to make the best decisions.
  In addition, I hope that the White Paper will include proposals for good-quality documentation about countries' circumstances that is accepted by those who represent
  644
  asylum seekers and Home Office decision makers. Such a provision exists in Canada, where both sides accept documentation about countries' circumstances. That means fewer arguments about whether a country from which people have fled is safe because both sides depend on internationally recognised, independent human rights monitors, which gets rid of some confusion. It is important to include the right people early.
  Let us consider the proposition that a bilateral agreement will make a substantial difference to the number of people who seek asylum in Britain after travelling from France. There is a chronic problem about knowing through which countries people have travelled, and it will not go away for two reasons. First, many people travel in sealed containers; sometimes that has tragically led to their deaths. Secondly, some people believe that admitting through which countries they have travelled is likely to lead to their being returned to a place where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. We must deal with that in the long term; I accept that it is difficult in the short term, but we must do it.
  The necessary changes involve not only a bilateral agreement between Britain and France, about which I do not feel optimistic, but a better agreement between European countries about common procedures for dealing with asylum applications. It is currently possible for France to remove those who have not applied for any status: the people at Sangatte. The French authorities choose neither to remove them nor to require them to apply for asylum, although they know that the people in Sangatte are seeking refuge.
  If the French authorities held the positive views that Conservative Members are slightly overstating, they could adopt a simple method of tackling the problem. They could require those who reside in Sangatte to make asylum applications. They do not, partly because the people there do not want to do that. However, such a requirement would have the same effect as a bilateral arrangement. I accept the Home Secretary's points, but one of the sensible requests that we could make to the French Government would be to encourage the people in Sangatte to make asylum applications.
  If the Dublin II arrangements were implemented, the people in Sangatte would have to make an application to France within two months, or, if they remained for two months, France would become responsible for them. We must acknowledge that France has not always honoured agreements to the extent that is being suggested. I was involved in immigration in the period when, according to Conservative Members, a bilateral arrangement worked perfectly. On many occasions, France did not accept people whom Britain attempted to return under it. I can also think of current examples of France unilaterally repudiating agreements. For example, it continues to refuse to recognise United Kingdom-issued stateless travel documents for people with exceptional leave to remain.
  The tenor of the debate has been of people preferring to remain in Britain rather than France, but let us be clear that France operates as I described. The French authorities refuse to allow people with refugee travel documents and refugee status here to visit France without visas. We should not become too confident that France is enthusiastic about a bilateral agreement or that it would abide by it.

  645
  We will solve the problem not only by improving our systems and making bilateral agreements with France but by working energetically for full harmonisation throughout the European Union on the definition of a refugee and the process that people undergo to determine their status. I appreciate that we cannot do that in months, and it is not therefore the short-term solution that the Conservative party wants. However, it is necessary because the minor differences between EU countries' methods of deciding applications often determine the places to which people choose to apply. People do not apply to Britain simply because there are more jobs here; they feel fearful about some countries' treatment of them. There is no reason for not achieving an EU agreement on interpreting the convention and proper procedures for dealing with applicants.
  There are stumbling blocks, such as Germany's refusal to accept oppression by groups and forced marriages as grounds for refugee status, but working on EU agreement is important. If we put a lot of energy into that, we would be able to create a genuinely level playing field in the system to define who is a refugee within the European Union, and then we could work towards equality in procedures for granting and refusing status, reception conditions and so on. That must be the Government's priority.
  The final line of the amendment reminds us of the difficult situation that the Conservative party put many local authorities in through its chaotic arrangements. Some authorities are still suffering from that, and I urge the Minister to ensure that there is fair treatment for local authorities close to London that are still burdened with high costs because they have to provide for large numbers of asylum seekers.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to a debate in which some very important points have been made. I was surprised that, in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the Home Secretary did not tell us more about what is being done to try to achieve an effective border control between ourselves and France.
  The Home Secretary was in France on 19 September last year and spoke about the juxtaposition of different regimes and the introduction of new equipment to try to improve the detection of people attempting to enter illegally. It would have been a service to the House if he had given us some more detail on that. Perhaps the Minister will do that; otherwise, a few months on from 19 September, people will still be in the dark about the effectiveness of those new technologies.
  Some of the more aggressive attempts to get into the tunnel and on to the trains may in fact be the result of successful new measures, and people should be made aware of that. One of the things that I would like this debate to achieve is to deny the Daily Express a headline. If we can add to public information and show that there is a system in place to try to deliver effective border control, that will be all to the good.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spoke about the Government's failure to secure bilateral agreement with France. I offer
  646
  him a suggestion as to why it did not happen. Back in February 2001, the Prime Minister had a discussion with President Chirac about these issues. The principal result was that the French Government offered the Prime Minister a cross-channel commission. The French Government have noticed that a commission—rather than the delivery of substantive measures—is our Government's solution to most problems, so it is hardly a surprise that they offered him rhetoric and a procedural solution, rather than a substantive one.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked about juxtaposed immigration officials. That was reasonable, and not at all churlish, because back in February 2001, when the decision was being made, Downing street said, according to the BBC, that the scheme would be in place by summer 2001—so where is it?
  We should have an agreement with France. It is perfectly clear that such an agreement was relatively successful in the past but fell down under the implementation of the Dublin convention. The French Government simply cannot abandon their responsibility. People who have entered a Schengen country, which is where they should have made their asylum application, and who are illegally in France are seeking to come illegally to the UK. France has a moral, if not a legal, obligation under the Dublin convention to do something about it. It should work with the Schengen group and the British Government to deliver. Dublin II is a lengthy process, and something needs to be done in the meantime.
  The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that the most important thing was to deliver an efficient and quick system of asylum decision making that has integrity. I entirely agree, but frankly that is not separate from the problems in France. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, the fact that our system has not been effective and we have not been able to offer asylum rapidly to genuine refugees, while those without a valid claim remain here with no realistic prospect of removal, has led to the problem of large numbers of people in France making repeated efforts to get here, because the reward is seen as worth the risk. We must reduce the reward for illegal entry into this country and ensure that only those with a well-founded fear of persecution seek asylum here.
  At the heart of that is whether the Government can deliver on their promises. I acknowledge that many more caseworkers have been taken on—finally, last year—but we need to know how quickly the Government will start reducing the backlog not only of initial decisions but of appeals. On 29 October last year, the Home Secretary promised us 6,000 appeal decisions a month. How quickly will we achieve that and the 2,500 removals a month which, as I understand it, he promised would be delivered by spring 2002? How soon will we be able to establish in our own minds and the minds of those who might wish to come to this country that we understand the difference between those who have a claim to asylum and those who want to come here on grounds of economic migration?
  We must distinguish between the two, although that does not mean that we put up a "Closed" sign and refuse to allow anyone to come here on economic grounds. I hope that the White Paper will set out a reasonable basis for offering economic migration to the UK, because that can be of considerable benefit to us. This country spent a couple of hundred years in the 18th and 19th centuries

  647
  exporting people to various parts of the world, so we ought at least to understand that there might be occasions when it is reasonable for people to come here.
  We need to have a system whereby those with a reasonable claim to asylum have a confident expectation of securing a welcome here, with good accommodation, delivered through a quick system of decision making, while those who want to come here as economic migrants know that it is far better to put in a claim from their country of origin or, if they have left countries such as Afghanistan or Somaliland, that they will be part of an international system of sharing the burden of looking after such migrants, and that if they have a special reason for wanting to come to the United Kingdom, we will acknowledge it.
  Those who put themselves in the hands of the traffickers should be increasingly sure that illegal entry to the United Kingdom will be prevented or reversed, and they will be rapidly returned to their country of origin. If people knew that trying to secure illegal entry here would not pay, we would have a much more successful system. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset put to Ministers. My debate in Westminster Hall on 24 October 2000 was designed to secure answers to the same questions, and it took the Home Secretary only five days to respond in large measure to that. I hope that the Government will respond positively today.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: This has been a thoughtful and constructive debate. Measured contributions have been made in a non-party political way from all parts of the House, and we should all be grateful for that. I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who introduced this topic in what might in sporting terms be described as a warm-up match in Westminster Hall the other day.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): The second XI?
  Mr. Malins: Is the hon. Lady talking about her own side? Surely not.
  Some of the players in that debate are here again today. I was grateful for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who has great experience in home affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a thoughtful and well-argued speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden outlined many of the issues that we raised together in Westminster Hall last week. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—decided that after last week, I was not to have a quiet afternoon today but would have to do the same thing again—for the constructive way in which he put our arguments to the House.
  I hope that I shall be forgiven, Madam Deputy Speaker, for reminding the House that in 1992 I was privileged to found the Immigration Advisory Service, the largest national charity that gives free legal help and advice to those with rights of appeal under immigration law. It does excellent work throughout the country, and I am proud of my association with it. As the hon. Member for Slough
  648
  (Fiona Mactaggart) said, expert advice for asylum seekers is important, and the IAS is one of the bodies that provides it.
  We would all agree with the proposition that any country with decent values—I am thankful to say that we remain such a country—must speedily and happily grant refugee status to those who are entitled to it. Further, we must display not just good sense but humanity, not only in what we do but in what we say—and, most important, in the way we say it. That point was reinforced by the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
  Twenty years ago, or even 10, asylum was not a political issue in this country. Today it is. Why? Perhaps the answer is simple. It is because of the dramatic increase in the number of applications, and the publicity, some of it rather inflammatory, given to the topic by the media and others.
  The world has changed. Today millions of people are on the move: many are displaced by conflicts and war, but many are simply seeking a better life. We are witnessing a steady march of genuine asylum seekers from war-torn areas and regimes that persecute—but there is also a steady march of the poor and desperate, who seek no more than the chance to work, to live decently and to support their families. Both those categories of people deserve our respect—and, I venture to suggest, our help.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) referred in an intervention to the appalling criminal gangs that smuggle people into this country—and there is, of course, another date that should be impressed on all our minds: 19 June 2000, when 58 Chinese people were found dead, suffocated, in the back of a lorry at Dover. Yes, they were illegal immigrants, but we should never forget—I am sure that none of us, on either side of the House, will ever forget—that they were also ordinary people who sought no more than a better life, to which who would say that they were not entitled?
  A glance at the figures illustrates the changed world in which we live. In 1990 there were 26,000 asylum applications; in 2000 there were more than 97,000, including dependants. There is also the backlog. I cast no blame for this, but in August 2001 more than 43,000 applicants were awaiting an initial decision. We were—and still are—faced with the sadness that several Members have referred to when people are refused asylum and have to leave this country having been here for months, even years. Those people have put down roots, and many of us have seen in our surgeries the human tragedies that sometimes result.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset rightly drew the attention of the House to the bilateral agreement that we had with France. As he said, it worked well for two years and would work well again. The Opposition support without reservation my hon. Friend's call for the Government to do their utmost to reinstate that agreement. The hon. Member for Slough suggested that we were saying that that would be a short-term solution, but we were not. I do not think that any of us thinks of it as a solution; it is simply one step that we could and should take, for the benefit of all concerned.
  In the Westminster Hall debate last week I tried, not forcefully but in a rather laid-back way, to press the Minister to tell us what the Government had done over the past four years to try to persuade France to reinstate

  649
  the agreement that had worked so well. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden would agree that the Minister could not tell us much. She spoke of the
  "considerable bilateral work with France, centring mainly on the Sangatte issue",
  and when pressed further she simply said that the two Governments
  "meet regularly to discuss immigration issues."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 19WH.]
  I hope that when she winds up the debate she will be able to tell us in more detail what the Government have done over the past four years to try to reinstate the agreement.
  France has co-operated well. I hope he will forgive me if I am wrong, but I think it was the Home Secretary who mentioned the French legislation which means that passengers using an international train service with a domestic leg—Paris to the UK via Calais, say—have to submit to UK entry controls in Paris. I congratulate the Government on the work that they have done with the French in that respect, and I believe that that law comes into force either yesterday, today or tomorrow. Such co-operation is important, and should be repeated with the bilateral agreement.
  I must say a word or two about Sangatte. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, spoke movingly and accurately about the state of affairs there. When I visited Sangatte with the Home Affairs Committee, I saw almost 1,000 people herded together in what seemed like an aircraft hangar, gathered to make their attempt to enter this country. They were in a sorry state; it was cold, nasty and damp, people were cramped together, and the lavatory conditions were awful. Nobody on that all-party Committee could have failed to be moved by what we saw.
  We saw thousands of people who had passed through a series of safe countries and arrived in France, which is itself a safe country. The obvious question to ask is, if they were asylum seekers, why did they not make their claim—indeed, why were they not obliged to make their claim—in the first safe country they reached, or in France itself? If they were not asylum seekers, what was being done to prevent their attempts to enter this country illegally?
  I ask the Government to do all that can be done to persuade the French to close Sangatte—on humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, perhaps there is an argument for centres to be further away from the French coast. I was sorry to read in the papers that an attempt by Eurotunnel to have the centre closed was rejected a few days ago by a French court, for the second time in about five months.
  What advice can the Opposition offer the Government? I simply ask them, "Please do all you can to work closely with the French to reinstate the bilateral agreement that served us so well, and also work hard to ensure that Sangatte is closed." I also make the nuts-and-bolts point that they should put more detection equipment not only at Dover but at Felixstowe, and at Coquelles and Calais. There should be more equipment on the other side of the channel, where it would be so much more use.
  The Opposition believe that the House is united in the aim of reducing the inflow of asylum applicants, and is also committed to a more equal distribution. We believe
  650
  that a reinstated bilateral agreement is a most useful measure. Perhaps the issue that divides us is the Government's belief that a long-term, EU-wide distributional treaty is the whole answer, but we both accept that there is merit in the other's principle. All we say to the Government is that now is the time to act. With good will, the bilateral agreement, which could—and should—bring more order to our system, could be reinstated within months. Whatever we do, sooner rather than later we must adopt a policy that ensures that the tragedy of the 58 Chinese can never be repeated.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): There has been considerable agreement during the debate on what needs to be done to address the problem of those who seek asylum in particular European Union countries. There has also been a great deal of discussion of wider asylum issues, to which we will be able to respond when the White Paper is published. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the need to consider end-to-end processes and a more holistic system, rather than relying purely on asylum. Reference has also been made to illegal working and establishing international agreements to deal with this evolving issue, and I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the White Paper contains such analysis. I hope that its suggestions will be welcomed on publication later this week.
  I also welcome the tone of the debate, which has established at least one thing that we can all agree on—that the problem cannot be solved purely by unilateral action in the UK. This is a global issue with international and supranational aspects, and we need to co-operate internationally if we are to defeat the scourge of the people traffickers. While listening to today's debate, I was heartened to hear many hon. Members acknowledge that trade's criminal nature, its growth in recent years and its dire effects on those who fall into the clutches of the people traffickers. Again, the White Paper will have something to say about that.
  I must, however, move away slightly from the warm glow of the cross-party approach, because I do not agree with the analysis that the bilateral agreement was a sunny upland that we should look back on nostalgically and attempt to repeat. Actually, it did not work very well, and I should chide the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) slightly for his article in today's Daily Express, the tone of which does not quite match his comments in the House today. In it, he states:
  "the flow of people crossing the Channel from France reached unsustainable levels and brought our asylum system to its knees".
  That is not true. Although there have been increases, our bilateral and co-operative agreements with the French have substantially reduced the numbers getting through, which is one reason why Sangatte is holding double the amount of people that it was designed to hold.
  The hon. Gentleman's article also suggests that the bilateral agreement—was called a gentleman's agreement, funnily enough—worked well. I can give him some figures on how well it worked. His article states that, when the Labour Government took office, the lower

  651
  figure that was achieved under the bilateral agreement increased to as many as 43,000, and it implies that all of that increase was associated with France. However, in 1996, when the gentleman's agreement was in place, his Government returned numbers of people in the low teens every month. Overall, between 150 and 200 people were returned in 1996. The figures improved slightly in 1996–97, when 516 asylum seekers were returned to France under the terms of the bilateral agreement. Those figures are nowhere near being of the kind that his praise of the agreement would imply.
  The plain fact is that the agreement was weakened and rendered even less effective by judicial action and suspensive appeals as soon as it came into force. It took longer for an appeal to a judicial authority to establish that a return was sensible than the 24 hours, seven days or one month that the agreement specified. As a result, there were an increasing number of judicial review challenges. Even after the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and just before the end of the agreement, the monthly removal rate was 43 a month, but there were 127 judicial reviews. The agreement was faltering before it was superseded.
  Mr. Letwin: We have acknowledged during this debate that the judicial review caused difficulties, but have not the actions of the Minister's own Government rightly limited the scope for such reviews? Surely the real measure of the bilateral agreement's effectiveness is not how many were returned, but how many were deterred from moving in that direction in the first place.
  Angela Eagle: Deterrence is a major theme in the forthcoming White Paper, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome some of the things that we have to say about that issue. I am merely saying that the gentleman's agreement was probably put in place in the absence of the Dublin convention, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) rightly pointed out, was not brought into effect until seven years after it was negotiated because of difficulties arising from negotiation. To say that the gentleman's agreement would solve all our problems is therefore simplistic, to say the least. Any agreement that we reach, be it Dublin or Dublin II—which we hope will replace the first convention—will always be challenged by changes in behaviour that result from its coming into force.
  In his Daily Express article, the hon. Gentleman says that the agreement, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government,
  "was allowed to lapse when … Labour came to power".
  I shall read to him the last sentence of the first paragraph of that agreement, which states:
  "in relation to asylum seekers, it"—
  the gentleman's agreement—
  "shall be superseded by the relevant provisions of the Dublin Convention once that Convention has entered into force."
  The hon. Gentleman was good enough to point that out to the House, but that is not quite what his Daily Express article says.
  If we are to debate this issue, we need to get the facts on the table. We must not cling to the gentleman's agreement as if it will solve problems that we have spent three hours debating today, and which we all know are
  652
  very difficult to solve. There are no simple and easy answers to global migration and the question of how to deal with asylum. I would be the last to say that our systems are perfect. The White Paper will be a substantial step in the right direction, but I am not going to argue that, even if the White Paper's proposals were put in place tomorrow, we would not face substantial difficulties in dealing with global migration. We have to deal with the issue at source country. We have to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements, where that is necessary, that we can put in place. It has to be in everyone's interests, however, so burden-sharing in the European Union is an important part of our plans.
  I am glad to have had the chance to debate this. It has been a fair and interesting debate, and I hope that it is a taster for what is to come with the publication of the White Paper later in the week.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 325.

  Division No. 151]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bacon, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Barker, Gregory

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baron, John

  Hayes, John

  Bercow, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hoban, Mark

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnside, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cameron, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chope, Christopher

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cran, James

  Lidington, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maples, John

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fallon, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Reid, Mark (Cities of London)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Rook, Adrian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Osbome, George (Tatton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Paice, James

  Gray, James

  Paterson, Owen

  653

  Pickles, Eric

  Swire, Hugo

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Prisk, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Selous, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Watkinson, Angela

  Whittingdale, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wiggin Bill

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spink, Bob

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr.John Randall.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Caton, Martin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allan, Richard

  Challen, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Chaytor, David

  (Swansea E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clelland, David

  Baird, Vera

  Clwyd, Ann

  Baker, Norman

  Coaker, Vernon

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Battle, John

  Colman, Tony

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corston, Jean

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cotter, Brian

  Benn, Hilary

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benton, Joe

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Best, Harold

  (Copeland)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  David, Wayne

  Breed, Colin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Dawson, Hilton

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burden, Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burgon, Colin

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burnham, Andy

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Cairns, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  (NE Fife)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Casale, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  654

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flint, Caroline

  Lammy, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Laws, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Linton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lucas, Ian

  Gibson, Dr lan

  Luke, Iain

  Gilroy, Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  McCartney, Rt Hon lan

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Grogan, John

  MacDougall, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McFall, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  McNulty, Tony

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harvey, Nick

  McWalter, Tony

  Havard, Dai

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heath, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hermon, Lady

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hill, Keith

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miliband, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Holmes, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Mole, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Illsley, Eric

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Price, Adam

  655

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rendel, David

  Thurso, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Todd, Mark

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross, Ernie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ryan, Joan

  Tyler, Paul

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Sanders, Adrian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Webb, Steve

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, Brian

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simon, Siôn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woodward, Shaun

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

  Woolas, Phil

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Ivor Caplin and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Stringer, Graham

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKERforthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that co-operation with France on immigration and asylum issues is greater now than it has ever been; recognises that there has been an overall drop from 13,527 in 2000 to 10,927 in 2001, a drop of almost 20 per cent., in the number of people crossing illegally to the UK from France; further notes that bilateral co-operation continues to address the problem of asylum seekers in Northern France, that the French have made significant investment in police reinforcements in the region and judicial action has been taken against human traffickers and that, as a result of the imposition of the civil penalty, the number of clandestine entrants was reduced by 27 per cent. in 2001; and further notes that the previous Conservative Government left the asylum system in complete disarray, with local authorities left to pick up the pieces.

  Pensions and Benefits
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the Government's stated aim of increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioners' incomes which comes from the private sector, but notes with concern that the trend is in the opposite direction; deplores the regulatory burdens now placed on pension providers; condemns the Government for its failure to reform annuities; regrets the low level of saving and the decline of funded pensions; recognises that this poses a significant threat to the incomes of pensioners in the future; and further regrets that the Government's response is to increase the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits.
  The motion begins by endorsing an objective set by the Government. I had hoped that that would provide a starting point on which we could all agree. That point was the aim of moving from a system in which pensioners receive 40 per cent. of income from private savings and 60 per cent. from benefits to one in which the figures are the other way around. I regret that Ministers have, in the Government's slash-and-burn amendment to our motion, removed even our welcome for their stated aim. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure us that no matter what problems he may have with what we now call delivery, he remains committed to the aim of increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioners' incomes that comes from the private sector. I hope that that is shared ground and a goal in which we all believe.
  The reason for the debate is our concern that we are moving in the opposite direction. We worry that the decline of funded pensions that has gathered pace is spinning out of control. The proportion of employees with an occupational personal pension is declining. We know from parliamentary answers that the number of occupational pension schemes closed to new members is rising. We know from the latest survey by the National Association of Pension Funds that the percentage of members in schemes closed to new members has risen from 8 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the past year. There has even been a slight decline in the number of pensioners receiving an income from an occupational pension scheme.
  The picture before us is one of declining funded pension savings. That is borne out vividly by the statistics for the assets of our pension funds that have been released over the past few weeks. We thought that the picture was clear. The Office for National Statistics produced statistics on insurance companies' pension funds and trust investments. I am sure that those figures were closely read by many hon. Members; certainly, they should have been read by Ministers. They showed that in 1998 the total assets of our occupational pension schemes were £706 billion. That figure had risen by 1999 to £783 billion.
  With no comment or explanation, a new set of statistics was released more recently. Those figures show a very different picture. For precisely the same period covered by the previous statistics, they show that in 1999 our pension funds contained not £783 billion but £679 billion. Call me old fashioned, but £100 billion is still quite a lot of money to lose. We are entitled to hear Ministers

  657
  explain those statistics rather than smuggle them out. Why was the value of our pension schemes suddenly reduced by £104 billion?
  Mr. John Butterfill: Might the answer lie, at least in part, in the fact that the Government have raided pension funds through advance corporation tax changes to the tune of £5 billion a year for the past few years?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite correct, but we have two problems. First, on the snapshot date in 1999, the ONS estimate of the value of our pension funds had fallen by more than £100 billion. Secondly, there are questions about the trend in the value of our pension funds, which my hon. Friend rightly raises and to which I shall turn shortly.
  The ONS produced the revised figures for the value of pension fund assets with no apology or explanation of what had happened. If we are confronting what seems to be the biggest revision of economic statistics in the history of British economic management, we are surely entitled to some explanation of why £100 billion has gone from our pension funds. In the past hour, the ONS has stated:
  "Preliminary investigations suggest there is an error in the revision to 1999 and to the figures for 2000, particularly in the estimates of holdings of quoted shares. Further investigation is needed to clarify the position. In the interim, the figures are being withdrawn."
  So just before the debate, the Government withdrew their figures for the value of the assets of the pension funds of this country. In the press release that has just been rushed out, the Government are saying that they do not have the faintest idea how much there is in our pension funds.
  I hope that, at the very least, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will give us an explanation of what has gone wrong. Perhaps someone's finger slipped on the calculator—it is easy to lose £100 billion in the roundings—but I hope that at least we shall have an explanation as to what has gone wrong and a promise that, next time £100 billion goes astray from our pension funds, the Government will offer us—on time—a proper explanation and account instead of trying to smuggle out a statement with no explanation.
  Bob Spink: My hon. Friend may have noticed that some Labour Members have been laughing. Does he agree that this is no laughing matter but one about which our pensioners should be deeply concerned?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking not only about a massive statistical error—serious though that is—but about a new picture of what is happening to our pension funds. The old model, on the old statistics, was that there was £706 billion in 1998 and £783 billion in 1999, and that we would be moving onwards and upwards into the sunny uplands with more and more funded pension savings.
  I realise that nowadays there is complete uncertainty as to what is reliable, but the new statistics instead gave a figure of £706 billion in 1998, with the 1999 figure revised down to £679 billion, while the new figure for 2000 was even lower —£658 billion: a clear downward
  658
  trend. If the glory days of all that money in our pension fund assets have passed, those statistics and that new trend establish for the House the scale of the problem that we face in ensuring that our pensioners enjoy prosperity when they retire.
  There are of course many reasons for that decline. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has already referred to the increase in the tax burden and the regulatory burden that has fallen on many pensioners. However, no matter which of the many explanations one offers, the picture of decline in funded pensions is difficult to gainsay.
  Ministers may try to gainsay that fact, however. Let me suggest some of the arguments that we may hear. We may be told, "Ah, but of course markets go down as well as up." There will be a Financial Services Authority health warning on shares in pension funds. That is not what the Government used to say. It is certainly not what the Prime Minister said when he was challenged on the effect of his massive tax hit on our funded pensions. Then, he said that
  "as a result of pension funds rising 70 per cent. because of rises in the stock market since the election, those sums"—
  the sums for the tax—
  "are entirely illusory."—[Official Report, 1 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 704.]
  In fact, the Prime Minister's statistics were illusory. The reality is that people have less money in their pension funds because of the tax hit that he has imposed.
  I am sure that we shall also be told, "Don't worry, the funds are still pouring in." We have heard those statistics many times from Ministers and they are hinted at in the Government's amendment. However, I warn the Secretary of State that those figures for the flow of incomes into funded pensions come from the same source as the figures for the value of the assets in pension funds that he has withdrawn in the past hour. We shall not rely on those figures for the total income going into pension funds. If the right hon. Gentleman tries to develop that argument, I warn him that he is straying into dangerous quicksand. We know how those figures went wrong, and I shall be happy to enlighten him if he tries to deploy them.
  The Government will also argue—as the motion suggests—that there is no need to worry because they have introduced the marvellous stakeholder pensions. The Opposition want stakeholder pensions to be a success, but we know the problems that they face. I shall not go over the ground that we debated in this place just before Christmas regarding the take-up of stakeholder pensions. The Government have a target group—
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. Willetts: The latest figures—out today—confirm that, exactly as we warned in that debate, there are 5 million people in the target group with earnings of between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. Approximately 600,000 stakeholder pensions have been sold, and by the time one removes the people who have transferred to stakeholder pensions from other schemes, people who have been advised that their non-working wives should have a stakeholder pension, or people who have bought stakeholders for their grandchildren, the total number of people in the Government's target group will—as I suggested in that previous debate—be rather smaller than

  659
  the number of life peers that the Prime Minister has created since 1997. It may do the Government an injustice, but the figure is still many millions short of their target.
  I had intended not to repeat that point but to raise another one. What we are trying to focus on in this debate is the value of the funds in our pensions. I hope that the Secretary of State will also enlighten us on what are called in the trade "empty stakeholders". Those are stakeholder pensions that are perfectly formed, legally compliant and designated, as required by the legislation passed by the Government. Employees have been informed—just as they should have been. Such pensions are included regularly in the totals issued by Ministers of the number of stakeholder pensions that have been set up—but there is one minor technical problem: there is no money in them. They have no funds whatever.
  I shall quote from an employer's account. She said that she had a group personal pension, but
  "last month my independent financial adviser kindly advised me to set up a 'dummy' stakeholder scheme in order to be certain not to risk a £50,000 fine. This was duly done and announced, to gales of ironic laughter from staff. No one will ever contribute to it, but I've got my certificate."
  That anecdote is borne out by assessments made by independent financial advisers, one of whom calculated that nearly 80 per cent. of group stakeholder schemes that have been sold are designation only. That means that currently no contributions are going into them.
  The empty stakeholder is the apotheosis of Labour's pension policy. The legislation was passed; the brand name was launched; the employers comply with the new regulation; the employees are informed. Ministers boast about the number of schemes, but there ain't no money—no money whatever. They make no contribution at all to tackling the problem of pensioner poverty. Stakeholders will not do so either.
  Ministers do have one answer to the decline in funded pensions, however. It was revealed in a document published at almost the same time as the statistics that showed the decline and was entitled "The Pension Credit: Long-term Projections". The document shows what will really happen if we all retire with a modest amount in our funded pensions—which is now a dangerous risk: we shall he dependent on means-tested benefits.
  The projections in the document show that in 2040, assuming that the cost of the pension credit grows in line with earnings and that the revised level of funded pensions saving is a real prospect—scenario one—the pension credit will cost not £2 billion, as it is supposed to do in 2004, but £20 billion. In 2050, the cost will be £26 billion. It is forecast to take more than 1 per cent. of our entire national income.
  If we put together the statistics on the decline of funded pensions and the projected cost of the pension credit, we can see that there is a strategy behind what the Government are doing. We can see exactly in which direction our country is headed: to a situation where our funded pensions shrink in value, where we retire with lower pension incomes than we had hoped and, as a result, where we are dependent on means-tested benefits. That is the direction in which the Government are taking us. We are already moving in it; the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits has risen from 41 per cent. in 1997 to 57 per cent. in 2003, as the Library says in a letter to me, but that trend could go still further.
  660
  Our vision is one of a society where people build up more funded pensions for their retirement. That involves a pensions regime that is straightforward, comprehensible and encourages people to save, so that their incomes are not dependent on means-tested benefits. We have called this debate because it is clear that the Government are taking us in exactly the opposite direction.
  James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman talks about means-tested benefits and reducing the number of people who have to claim them. Obviously, one way to do that would be to cut the value of the minimum income guarantee. Can he give us a guarantee that, if he were the Secretary of State, he would continue to uprate the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings?
  Mr. Willetts: We will have that debate as we approach the next election. The Government have not promised indefinite upratings of their means-tested benefits in line with earnings, and our warning is that that is where we will end up if we carry on in the direction in which we are going; but the long-term uprating of benefits in line with earnings is not consistent with the objective in which Ministers say they believe—funded pensions providing 60 per cent. of pensioners' incomes.
  We want a society in which people have more funded-pension savings. That vision is as important as high-quality public services. When people are stuck on trolleys waiting for medical attention in hospital, they can see what is going wrong with our health service. When people are delayed by yet another rail strike, they can see that our transport system is not working. The decline in our funded pensions is much less visible, but it is more insidious and equally dangerous. The long-term consequences for our society of the decline in funded pensions could be very serious indeed. That is why we have called this debate, and it is why I ask the House to support the motion.
  7.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's framework for pensions which will reduce pensioner poverty and encourage saving; further welcomes the fact that pension savings are now at record levels and the increased choice given by stakeholder pensions; further welcomes the Government's decision to set up the Pickering review; and congratulates the Government on the extra £6 billion paid to pensioners from April and its intention to bring in the Pension Credit which will increase the incomes of around half of all pensioners."
  I commend the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for one thing at least—he spoke for substantially less time than he did when we last debated pensions. The only thing that seems to be the same is that he said absolutely nothing then about what the Conservative party would do to increase people's pensions savings, and tonight he did exactly the same—he said exactly nothing about what the Conservative party would do.
  I will deal with all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised during his short speech, but I am surprised that almost a year into this Parliament there is still no Tory policy. I am surprised because in the previous Parliament policies flowed from him like water. He told us that the

  661
  winter fuel payments were gimmicks, as were free television licences. A year later, with a new policy, winter fuel payments were so good that he wanted to pay them to everyone, not only those who lived here, but those who lived in sunny Spain as well. Instead of being gimmicks, free television licences became so good that he wanted to given them to everyone—even to those without television licences.
  By the election, the hon. Gentleman was on to a new policy—he wanted people to opt out of the basic state pension, the result of which would be that a 16-year-old boy would have to save about £10 a week just to buy back his basic pension. So there is no shortage of inventiveness from the hon. Gentleman, but he said absolutely nothing today.
  In case the hon. Gentleman did say nothing, I looked at the Conservative party's website, which is usually the repository of what a party has to say. It said, "Click for more", so I clicked for more and found out that there is no more. For the benefit of Conservative Members who do not have to hand a personal computer—it is probably against the rules of the House to have a PC in the Chamber—I have a copy of the web page on the Tory party policy, and it is absolutely blank, as hon. Members can see, except for a picture of the dome, for some reason. If that is the Tories' policy, good luck to them.
  It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to say, because I happened to glance through the February edition of Pensions Management, which includes an article by him under the odd heading, "Kiss—keep it simple stupid". Indeed, he is to be commended because he has kept it extremely simple. He says:
  "There are far too many pensioners living on low incomes."
  That is from the man who has opposed every measure that we have introduced precisely to help pensioners on low incomes. He might have got away with that if he had said at the same time what his policy was to help pensioners on low incomes share in the rising prosperity of this country, instead of which there is no policy whatever. We are well into this Parliament, and whereas some of his colleagues are coming up with policies here, there and everywhere, we hear not a single word from him on what his policy is.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State calls for policies from the Opposition in the first year of Parliament. Will he confirm that the last Conservative Government provided the largest-ever increase in pension funds, whereas he has presided over a very sad decline?
  Mr. Darling: I well remember what the last Conservative Government left us. I remember the mis-selling of pensions and the fact that the Conservative Government halved the value of the state earnings-related pension scheme and then forgot to tell anyone that they had done so. I remember that the gap between the better-off pensioners in this country and the poorest widened and that the Conservative Government left 2 million pensioners living in poverty. The hon. Member for Havant clearly also remembers those things because he at least said that something ought to be done about them. My complaint is that he has said absolutely nothing tonight or indeed at any other time when he has been
  662
  principal Opposition spokesman on pensions about what the Conservative party would do to tackle pensioner poverty.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Yes. I then want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Havant, but I shall give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the meantime.
  Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman quoted from February's Pensions Management. An article headed, "Government support slips" appears on page 9. Would he care to comment on the survey that found that Liberal Democrat policies on pensions were the most favoured among pensions experts?
  Mr. Darling: I am afraid that the professor who speaks for the Liberal Democrats is a bit behind the times. The article in Pensions Management was probably printed some time before an interview given by the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. On "Breakfast with Frost" on 28 February, he said:
  "What we go into the next general election with may not obviously make sense in terms of what we are saying at a previous general election."
  It is obvious that Liberal Democrat policies are all up for grabs as well. Indeed, I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has to say because the leader of his party has said
  "We might go into the next election saying we favour lower taxes."
  But the hon. Gentleman wants to spend £3 billion more on pensions alone. If his party leader is right, the hon. Gentleman may well have some difficulty with his policies. I suspect that those who read Pensions Management and similar publications will hold the same view on their pension policies. Everyone knows that the problem with the Liberal Democrats' policies on pensions and everything else is that they simply do not add up.
  Mr. Howard Flight rose—
  Mr. Willetts rose—
  Mr. Darling: I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Conservative party, and then I shall certainly give way.
  Let me first deal with stakeholder pensions. Interestingly, when we last debated the subject the hon. Member for Havant spoke at great length about the perceived shortcomings of stakeholder pensions, but he was extremely brief tonight, and I am not surprised. I notice that the Conservative party is somewhat divided on its attitude to stakeholder pensions. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who used to speak on pensions for the Conservative party, said:
  "stakeholder is a useful product and the charging cap has a had a beneficial effect. I believe even the industry would acknowledge that."
  So at least some Conservatives believe that stakeholder pensions are a very good addition to the options available to people.

  663
  The hon. Member for Havant, however, glided over the issue of stakeholder pensions. He did not mention the fact that, whereas in October just over 400,000 stakeholder pensions had been sold, the latest figure shows that just under 638,000 have been sold, with nearly 70,000 being sold in December. Therefore, stakeholder pensions are being sold month in and month out. We always said that it would take time for them to be sold. After all, people do not suddenly run out and buy a pension as they would another consumer good. People have to think about a pension and they have to receive the proper advice and so on. However, so far, there are encouraging signs that stakeholder pensions are being sold in the way that we anticipated.
  As I said when we last debated the issue, it is worth bearing in mind that, in addition to stakeholder pensions, new pension sales rose by 9 per cent. in the quarter from July to September and regular premium business rose by 50 per cent. That is encouraging. It shows that the general awareness of pensions and the willingness of people to buy them are increasing. Clearly, there is still a long way to go, but the fact that more than 637,000 pensions have been sold is part of a trend that should be encouraged. It is not surprising that Conservative Members have glided over that point as if, somehow, it did not matter. The last time we debated stakeholder pensions, they spent a considerable time going on about the fact that only 400,000 of them had been sold. Now that the number has increased considerably, they have absolutely nothing to say about the issue.
  Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend mentions the impressive figures for stakeholder pensions, but will he take this opportunity to remind people of the equalisation of pension ages that will take place between 2010 and 2020? As I have found in my constituency, that is an important issue, but I am not sure that many people's pension planning has taken account of the equalisation.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which perhaps highlights the problems that arose following the changes to the SERPS rules. It is obvious that all Governments of whatever political colour need to do far more to tell people about pension rules and about changes in pensions. I attach importance to that issue. I suspect that, whereas some people know that the state pension age will start to be equalised from 2010, the vast majority of the population, who tend not to talk about pensions every day of their lives, will not yet be aware of the change. We shall have to attend to that matter. No doubt, members of the Conservative party will complain about the advertising that will be necessary, but we will have to spend a considerable time telling people about that and other changes.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: According to the Secretary of State's latest figures, what percentage of the stakeholder pensions sold have been sold to the target group? What improvement has there been on the previous distinguished figure of 1 per cent. sold to the target group?
  Mr. Darling: The answer is that we will not know until later this year. The Inland Revenue collects the statistics and examines the contracted-out figures and it will know the figures then. It is too early to say what they will be. When stakeholder pensions were introduced, Conservative
  664
  Members told us that no one would sell them. In fact, many providers are selling the pensions. Conservative Members then said that no one would buy them, but more than 637,000 stakeholder pensions have now been sold. I expect to see the figure improve year on year, but we shall know later this year exactly who has bought them. I will be happy to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman if he is still here then. [Interruption.] I shall say nothing more on that and proceed.
  The hon. Member for Havant made much of his point about pension funds. It arose from the fact that an article appeared in today's Financial Times, although not in other newspapers despite his best efforts to hawk the story round yesterday, headlined:
  "Tories warn of £billion hole in pension funds".
  It is no wonder—especially as the Leader of the Opposition was present for a short time—that the hon. Gentleman was keen to explain how he had got himself into this pickle.
  The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a clever man, but although he had given the story to the Financial Times, the newspaper reported:
  "Mr. Willetts said he suspected a falling stock market and statistical error might be partially responsible for the drop."
  The Office for National Statistics is—as he knows, and as I know to my chagrin sometimes—independent of Government and, this evening, it has withdrawn those figures, because it says that they are not right and that it needs to do more work on them.
  I am sorry that the ONS has done that, but I have no control over it because it is entirely independent of Government. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's problem. He has given the story to a newspaper and he has now had to backtrack because it does not stand up. In fact, the total invested in United Kingdom pensions exceeds £1,000 billion, so he has got it completely wrong yet again. He is now having to explain himself.
  Mr. Willetts rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is going to apologise.
  Mr. Willetts: The cheek is quite breathtaking. The Secretary of State, who believed until a month ago that we had £783 billion in our pension funds, produced figures on the same day suggesting that we have £679 billion. This evening, the ONS has withdrawn its figures, because it does not have the faintest idea how much is in pension funds. None the less, the Secretary of State asks us to apologise. He should apologise to the pensioners of this country.
  Mr. Darling: The ONS is independent of Government. It produced figures that it now says are wrong. My point is that, yesterday, the hon. Gentleman tried to hawk a story round the journalists of the Sunday newspapers. He managed to get it into the Financial Times, but the Conservative party's central allegation—
  "Tories warn of £100 billion hole" —
  simply does not stand up.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps later, but not at the moment.

  665
  I want to deal with some of the other points that the hon. Member for Havant made. He referred to the fall in the proportion of pensioners with income from an occupational pension. I concede that the figure has fallen slightly. It was 60 per cent. according to the last figures, but it is now 59 per cent. We shall have to wait to see whether that is statistically significant but, when one takes the incomes coming from occupational pensions, private pensions and pensions as a whole, the figure is actually 73 per cent. Whatever point he was seeking to make, it does not seem to have much strength.
  The hon. Gentleman's second main point related to something that is undoubtedly true—there has been a decline in the number of people in defined benefit schemes since the mid-1960s. The number has declined for a number of reasons, including the shrinking public sector and the fact that there are no longer so many very large corporations, which typically used to run such pension schemes. Other factors undoubtedly have an effect. The introduction of the international accounting standard—FRS 17—no doubt shows up pension funds in company accounts differently from in the past and companies are reacting accordingly.
  There is no doubt that the reforms that the Conservatives introduced in the 1980s, which removed the compulsory nature of employers' schemes and enabled people to contract out, had an adverse effect, as did the changes that they introduced under the Pensions Act 1995. The hon. Gentleman is right: there has been a long-term decline and it has been going on since the 1960s.
  We have done some things that, I hope, will help. For example, the rebate has been increased by £11 billion over the next five years and we have also set up a review—I think that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it because he referred to it in the article in Pensions Management—that is designed to examine the regulatory burden on pensions. I have said before that the fact that some products are tightly regulated and the selling process is also regulated could result in some products becoming more inaccessible than they should be. That is why I asked Alan Pickering, formerly of the National Association of Pension Funds, to produce recommendations on reducing the regulatory burden. That is the right approach.
  Mr. Butterfill: I welcome the appointment of Alan Pickering to conduct the review, which has been long delayed by the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, according to the NAPF, the principal reason for the decline in such final salaries schemes is the impact of the increased regulatory burden, especially in the past five years?
  Mr. Darling: To be fair to the NAPF, it also attributes the long-term decline, which has been going on since the 1960s, to a number of causes. I have made it clear several times that we should now look at the regulatory regime. For good reasons, successive Governments have introduced regulations to prevent mis-selling, especially after the scandalous events of the 1980s. If products are regulated—stakeholder pensions are an example of a product that is fairly tightly regulated—and the selling process is regulated, we could have too much regulation and the product might become inaccessible. Other matters,
  666
  such as the contracted-out rebate regime, need to be considered. Alan Pickering is doing that and we will have his report later this year.
  The hon. Member for Havant did not mention annuities, which is surprising given that he feels so strongly about them. The consultation document on annuities, which was mentioned in the pre-Budget report, will be published by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue tomorrow. I hope that it will provide an opportunity for people to examine the options and will encourage them to save more for their retirement. It should also give them the chance to understand annuitisation better and consider the options on offer so that they make the right choices.
  Although we will maintain the principle that for most people annuities are the best way to ensure security in retirement, we are prepared to consider options for change. We are determined to ensure that any changes will increase the retirement income that people can expect to receive through an annuity. We also want to ensure that the funds that are saved with the benefit of tax relief are used to provide a secure income in retirement. It is not our aim that people who have money saved for their retirement and who become entitled to income-related benefits should not use their pension for the purpose for which it was intended. The consultation paper will be published jointly by the Economic Secretary and me tomorrow and no doubt we will return to it.
  Sir Robert Smith: I want to clarify an issue that a constituent recently raised with me. His company pension scheme will give him a reasonable pension. He has also invested in a free-standing additional voluntary contribution and has been told that because of various rules he has to take out the annuity at 65. His argument is that the company pension scheme will give him a reasonable basic retirement income and he wants to keep reinvesting to save up an additional sum so that he has something to fall back on when he is in his seventies and may be in greater need of it. Will that be dealt with in the review?
  Mr. Darling: We will give the hon. Gentleman and his constituent ample opportunity to make representations. For obvious reasons, I am wary of giving advice, especially across the Floor of the House, on the hon. Gentleman's constituent—not least because I am not authorised to do so under the Financial Services Act 1986. The document sets out the options that might improve the annuities market. The Government remain of the view, however, that the principle of annuitisation is important. We are determined to ensure that any changes that we implement benefit the majority of the pensioner population. As I said during Question Time last week, it would be a great pity to make changes that benefited only a handful of people, especially if that had an adverse effect on the pensioner population as a whole. The document sets out the principles against which we will judge any changes. The hon. Gentleman and his constituent will have ample opportunity to consult. The object of the consultation exercise is to ensure that we receive representations with a view to legislating in this year's Finance Bill.
  On pension credit, the Conservatives' ambivalence is again becoming apparent. We do not know from Conservatives Members—at least, those in this House—whether they are for or against it. I am convinced that it is

  667
  high time that we ended the anomaly in the social security system. It is nonsense that had pensioners done everything that successive Governments asked them to do, they would have lost out. I was especially pleased that on Second Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill in the other place, one of my predecessors, the noble Lord Fowler, said:
  "To be frank, I should have preferred it if my government had introduced the pension credit … It is long overdue, and my hope is that it will provide support for some of the most deserving people in this country."
  I can think of worse references. Indeed, Lord Higgins, who speaks for the Conservatives in the upper House, said about the pension credit:
  "we welcome the increase in money for pensioners … The change in capital limits is welcome, as is the abolition of the weekly means test … Extra money for pensioners is obviously a good thing".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 147–165.]
  One might have thought that if it is good enough for the Conservatives in the upper House, it is good enough for the Conservatives in this House. However, we shall wait to see what they have to say on that. The Conservatives chose not to go into the last general election promising to take £200 off every pensioner voter by getting rid of the winter fuel payment, so I find it hard to believe that they will go to nearly half the pensioner households in this country and say that they intend to scrap the pension credit, which could cost some pensioners more than £400 a year.
  As I said in response to an intervention, our pension policy has to be seen in the context of what we inherited. Too many pensioners were living in poverty; about two in five people of working age were making no voluntary provision for retirement; and too many people were not saving enough. Not enough was being done for the low paid, people with broken work records, the widowed or the divorced. We have put in place reforms to help all those people. Above all, with the pension credit, we are removing the disincentives in the social security system that hit pensioners with modest savings or modest occupational pensions who should be rewarded for their effort and thrift, not penalised because of it.
  We have tackled pensioner poverty through the minimum income guarantee, which the Conservatives have always opposed. As a result of that, some of the poorest pensioners will be at least £20 a week better off than they would have been under the Conservatives. We reformed the state earnings-related pension scheme through the state second pension, from which 18 million people will gain. We have introduced new savings options, such as individual savings accounts—again, condemned by the Tories when they were introduced—and stakeholder pensions. We are ensuring that it pays to save. All those changes are necessary.
  My final point is that, almost gratuitously, the hon. Member for Havant commented on public services. It is difficult to understand where that fits into the Conservative party's pension policy. All I can say is that the Conservative party, its leader and its shadow Chancellor are committed to reducing public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product, which equates to about £60 billion—almost as much as we spend on health or education. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like it when I point out their policies—some are agreeing, some are saying that I am wrong. No wonder they are a
  668
  bit unhappy. They have to face up to the fact that no matter what they say about public services, if we cut investment the quality of service—whether it is health, education or pensions—will suffer.
  We believe that public investment in pensions and other public services is justified and necessary. We will carry on with it and make the necessary reforms along the way. It is just a pity that the Conservatives do not face up to what their policies mean. After all, they have only to contrast what happened in their 18 years in government and the mess that they left behind with the difference that we are making to millions of people in this country.
  7.58 p
  Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the Conservatives on raising such an important topic and broadly support their motion. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) rightly referred to the amount of money in funded pensions, which is the linchpin of the Government's pension strategy. They have described occupational pension provision as the great success story of the welfare state. If private provision is to form not 40 but 60 per cent. of final retirement provision in years to come, we clearly need a growing foundation in the private sector.
  That is why at the beginning of last week I tabled a question to the Secretary of State querying the dubious figures on the amount of money going into funded pensions. The Minister for Pensions has cited the figures repeatedly—in good faith, I am sure—but they have never quite rung true. They have always seemed a bit fishy. So, at the start of last week I asked him to break down those figures and to say where they came from. It will not surprise the House to learn that I have received a holding answer. Whether it was my intervention or that of the hon. Member for Havant that prompted the Office for National Statistics to withdraw its statistics, it is clear that the revision is so radical and so queries the fundamental basis of the Government's claims that we need accurate figures. The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue.
  The Government's attitude to pension provision is best characterised by the complacent washing of their hands wherever any criticism is levelled, particularly with regard to private provision.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was appallingly complacent of the Government, knowing that the figures were different by £100 billion not to ask the ONS why? What were they doing?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right; the Government are complacent. They say that they want to rely increasingly on the private sector, which still means predominantly occupational pension provision, but when asked questions about occupational provision, they say, "That is for companies and the market to decide."
  To give an example, the Secretary of State mentioned the FRS17 accounting standard, which is having a profound effect on company pension provision. Pensions Management, to which he referred, highlighted the fact that most pensions professionals cite that as the single biggest issue in pension provision. However, when I tabled a question to the Treasury about FRS17,

  669
  the answer came back that that was a matter for the Accounting Standards Board, as if it were nothing to do with Government.
  Mr. Darling: Well it is.
  Mr. Webb: The Secretary of State may say, "Well it is," but if the Government are to rely increasingly on private provision, most of which will be occupational, and that provision is being undermined, resulting in lower not higher coverage, they cannot just sit and watch. If they have a target, they must have the means to achieve it.
  The Government have watched such things go on. The Secretary of State referred to the long-term trend towards a decline in final salary schemes, but is it accelerating? Do the Government know? I am happy to give way if the Secretary of State knows the answer. One assumes that such schemes are declining. Given that major employers are closing their final salary schemes to new employees, one would imagine that that was so. If the industrial restructuring that the Secretary of State is talking about is carrying on, one would imagine that that was so. Do they know? Do they care? Are they doing anything? We have had no answer.
  The theme of the debate is the disappointment caused by Government pension policies. I want to highlight just three quite large groups of people who will be let down and disappointed by the Government's pension policy.
  Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman seems to share the aspiration to increase the proportion of private pension provision, and I am surprised by that. Nobody has yet said how that is to be achieved. Does he agree that the only way to achieve it would be to make pension provision compulsory? If so, does that not raise the question of which provides better value for money, a compulsory private pension or increased spending by the state?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady raises a series of important and relevant points. I shall come to the compulsion issue in a second. I would like good-quality occupational provision to be expanded rather than cut as part of the process. For example, the Government should look at why people who would previously have had a final salary scheme are now no longer allowed entry to such schemes, and they should try to reverse that trend so that more people for whom it is appropriate can get good-quality occupational provision.
  The hon. Lady is right to suggest that there will be people who do not have access to such provision. In that case, in old age there needs to be a good foundation of both state and private provision for as many people as possible—because both have risks. State provision, as history has shown us, is liable to be ripped up by successive Governments and does not provide any real guarantee, while private provision is subject to the vagaries of the capital market and various other uncertainties. Both are uncertain; neither provides a guarantee, and that is why we want a foundation for both for as many people as possible.
  The first of the three groups that have been let down by the Government on pension provision has to be women. Women have historically had a very bad deal from
  670
  pension provision and are likely to lose out in future. One reason—it relates to the point that the hon. Lady mentioned—is the 60 per cent. private target. One danger is that private pension provision in old age very much reflects the working experience of people. If there is to be an emphasis on private provision, how will the Government stop the inequalities from which women suffered in the work place filtering through into old age?
  One group of women have done quite well out of the Government's pension policy: the wives of rich men. I have nothing against the wives of rich men. I have no problem with husbands buying them pensions, given that they may not still be married when they retire. However, if that is the main group that has benefited from the Government's policies, something is missing.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Targeting.
  Mr. Webb: Indeed. Clearly, there is a danger that with enhanced reliance on the private sector and without a clear strategy, women will lose out.
  Let us consider the stakeholder pension. When people take out a stakeholder pension, they have to buy an annuity with it. Although some small part of the pension buys a unisex annuity, most of that pension will be smaller for women. So, although women are living longer and therefore receiving a comparable amount over their lives, the amount that they have to live on each week will be smaller.
  We have heard nothing from the Government on how or whether they intend to address that. The stakeholder pension is intended particularly for people on modest incomes, so not a lot will be going into it in the first place. If it is then lower for women, they will lose out. Do the Government have any strategy for women's pensions in that respect?
  Mr. Butterfill: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the recent report by the Association of Consulting Actuaries on the position of women in occupational pension schemes? It says that whereas 21 per cent. of full-time working women did not have occupational schemes in 1989, the figure is now 26 per cent. So, 5 per cent. more women do not have an occupational scheme now compared with 1989.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters and highlights the problem. The Government say that reliance on the private sector is a key part of their strategy, but they do not seem to know or care about what is going on, even if things are going backwards for women and other groups.
  Women are vulnerable not just in private sector provision. The Government have trumpeted their measures on state provision. Increases in the minimum income guarantee will go predominantly to poorer pensioners, many of whom are women, and that is to be welcomed, but what about those who do not take up their entitlement, who are also predominantly women? The Government's obsessive emphasis on the means-tested strand, at the great expense of the universal strand, is prejudiced against women, because they will take up their pension but will not necessarily take up their minimum income guarantee. That is why our party remains

  671
  committed to the basic state pension, particularly for older pensioners, many of whom are women and all of whom take up their entitlement.
  I am surprised that the Government have not mentioned much about the state second pension, which is another element of their strategy. Again, it is claimed as a great thing for women, with credits and all the rest of it. In 40 or 50 years' time, if the policy survives that long, it might be such a great thing. However, for anybody already at pension age, it is irrelevant, and for those who are 10 or 20 years below pension age, it will make precious little difference. Therefore, we are talking really only about 30 or 40 years down the track. Such changes are likely to be ripped up and restructured many times during that period. So, women cannot be sure of an enhanced pension through that scheme. It is too complicated and bound to be revised again and again. I should like to give one example in that regard.
  When the state second pension was introduced, we said that it was not enough and that it would not bring pensioners, together with the basic pension, above the means test. The Government said, "Nonsense; it is adequate," yet they have now introduced a pension credit. Therefore, someone who has made no voluntary saving and has only the basic state pension and the state second pension will receive a top-up through the pension credit to bring their combined income to a better level because the scheme that the Government have introduced was not good enough. If the Government have to rewrite the rules just two years after they have introduced them, what hope is there that such a scheme will be in place in 40 years' time? Women are missing out because of the Government's pension strategy.
  In "The House Magazine" this week, the Secretary of State wrote an article about pension provision and looked at the long-term future for the group to which I have just referred. He said:
  "The key to people having a decent pension in retirement is getting today's twenty-somethings to start putting their money away as early as possible. To this end, we have introduced stakeholder pensions and are reforming SERPS with the State Second Pension."
  Clearly, 20-year-olds are all down the Dog and Duck or wherever they go, discussing the state second pension and its reform. I wonder whether the Secretary of State, who I assume wrote the article, can tell us how many 20-year-olds have bought stakeholder pensions? I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he is able to provide that figure—but, of course, he has no idea. [Interruption.]He says that he told us earlier, but what he said earlier is that the Government do not know and will not know for some time. The article says that 20-year-olds will be okay because there are stakeholder pensions, but he does not have a clue whether any 20-year-olds have bought a stakeholder pension—such is the Government's complacency about pensions.
  Women are not the only ones who lose out from the Government's proposals. Those who want to retire in a phased way, instead of going over the current cliff edge of retirement, also miss out because of the Government's policy. In the same article, the Secretary of State expresses all the usual platitudes about early retirement or flexible retirement. He writes:
  "The UK's employment and early retirement culture urgently needs to change. That's why we have introduced a number of policies to help these changes along and start tackling ageism".
  672
  Here is one of those crushing policies:
  "We have … sent out 75,000 copies of the voluntary Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, which points out the benefits of an age diverse workforce."
  Let us imagine the scene in offices throughout the land as the Government leaflet drops on the mat and people say, "Oh, we hadn't thought of that. Employing older people will help us, so let's rush out and employ them." What nonsense. The Government are dragging their heels on legislating in respect of age discrimination. They are doing as little as possible and delaying until the last possible moment.
  What can be done? Bizarrely, one can spend one's life working for one firm, Tesco, then retire from Tesco, draw a private occupational pension and go to work for Sainsbury—that is allowed; but one cannot retire from a life working for Tesco and then go to work part-time for Tesco, as that is not allowed. In the latter case, the Inland Revenue says that one has not really retired, so one cannot have one's pension with its tax privileges. That is absolutely barmy.
  If, as the Secretary of State—or whoever wrote the article—claims, the Government want people to go on working longer, perhaps past state pension age, should not the Government be helping people to phase their retirement? Should not people be able to draw their pension while doing some part-time work? Should they not have flexibility and choice? No—the Inland Revenue rules the roost. On flexible retirement, the Government sound great, but there is no sign of action.
  If anything, retirement is happening earlier, not later. Far too many people who would like to continue working and phase in their retirement are forced to stop work. Despite reports and reviews, the Government have nothing to say on the issue.
  Andrew Selous: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's highly enjoyable speech. Does he agree that it was regrettable that when the issue of age discrimination was raised in the House, in the form of a Labour Back Bencher's proposal for an age discrimination commission, the Government passed up the opportunity to do something positive, saying that Europe would provide the answer in a couple of years' time?
  Mr. Webb: It was regrettable that that opportunity was not grasped. The Government are doing everything they can to slow down the introduction of legislation. People are suffering from age discrimination now, yet the Government are dragging their heels and making matters worse.
  A third group of pensioners who have not been mentioned so far—a group who are losing out because of the Government's mean spiritedness—are those who are entitled not to widows' pensions, but to widowers' pensions. The Government have been found out: only this week, a court case resulted in a ruling that a woman who was bereaved would get a widow's pension, a widow's benefits and tax allowances, whereas a man in the same position would not. The Government have legislated for the future, but what about the people who have been discriminated against for years? The Government settled the case out of court to avoid setting a precedent, but I have constituents who are widowers and who ought to be entitled to benefits and pensions.

  673
  I will give the Minister for Pensions the benefit of the doubt and hope that he will respond to the debate, and specifically to that point. I live in hope—but he is smiling knowingly at me, so perhaps I should not. Will the Government evade their responsibilities or will they recognise that there is an injustice that must be remedied? Will they do something about widowers, especially those with children, who have missed out?
  Previously, I alluded to that fine magazine, Pensions Management. It reports the result of a survey on political parties' records on pensions policy, and it is worth summing up for the House what those who know about pensions are saying. Those who responded to the survey are those who run pensions. They have—is it £600 billion or £700 billion? Who knows? It is certainly plenty of money, and the figures have lots of noughts. Such people are the linchpin of the Government's pensions strategy, because if 60 per cent. of people's income in old age is to come from the private sector, the vast bulk will be derived from the occupational pensions sector. The people who answered the survey know what they are talking about it—and if they do not, the Government are in trouble.
  Those people were asked which party has the most appealing and effective pensions policies, not pensions spokesman—and at this point I have to disappoint and part company slightly with the Conservatives. In February 2002, the survey indicated that 7 per cent. of respondents thought that the Conservative party had the most appealing and effective pensions policies—which is not bad for a party that has none at all—and 9 per cent. chose the Labour party. With all due modesty, I should say that the figure for the Liberal Democrat party was not large; however, at 14 per cent., it was double that for the Conservatives. Let us remember that the people who were asked that question know what they are talking about—and if they do not, we are all in trouble. It is a salutary lesson for us all that "None of the above" was the runaway winner.
  Perhaps we should reflect on the fact that if we all continue to change our policies—the Government seem to change theirs with the wind—if none of us settle, and if we do not achieve an all-party consensus, no one will have the security they need to plan for their old age. In the past, we tried to talk to the Government about pensions, but they have their rigid strategy of means-testing, and that is the approach that they will take. That is regrettable, but it is not too late for them to repent of that strategy. If we work together, perhaps in future those who run pensions and those who receive them will think better of all of us.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I, like many Labour Members, am grateful to the Opposition for the spirit in which they framed tonight's motion. On many aspects of that motion, a fair number of us agree with the official Opposition, but the lack of generosity in its drafting shows how far the Conservative party has to go before the electorate will once again start to listen to it.
  The big divide between the Government and the Opposition is that, despite criticism of the Government's strategy, most of the electorate believe that the
  674
  Government's heart is in the right place. The Government's effort to help the poorest pensioners the most is one with which most voters agree. The Opposition still stand charged at the bar of public opinion with being a party that, when in government, was successful in ensuring that richer workers gained more adequate pension provision on retirement, whereas those who had fewer assets were less fairly dealt with. Had the motion taken notice of the marked change in the temper of the debate that the Government have brought about, some Labour Members might have gone into the Lobby to support it this evening.
  There is real concern among Labour Members—I am not the only one who feels it—about the direction of Government policy in significantly increasing the number of people on some form of means-tested assistance. I do not believe that that is a sustainable policy in the long run. That will be the single focus of my contribution to the debate. The difficulties that the Government are getting into because of their adoption of means-testing become all too apparent when we read their consultation document on the pension credit.
  When the Government introduced the minimum income guarantee, many hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out that a considerable number of our constituents who were doing everything that previous Governments and the current Government had asked them to do—that is, save for their retirement—would probably make themselves worse off. Initially, the Government denied that. Then, thank goodness, there was a Pauline conversion—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is mumbling, but I can give him evidence; perhaps this can be followed up by letter.
  After a Pauline conversion, the Government decided to introduce a further means test—on the pension credit—to overcome the disadvantages that some pensioners, perhaps a significant number, faced and would face in future because of the minimum income guarantee. The pension credit became urgent when the Government linked their strategy to the sale of stakeholder pensions. It is clear that at least half the members of the target group could make themselves worse off by buying a stakeholder pension instead of not doing so, spending all their money and relying on the minimum income guarantee on retirement.
  To overcome that difficulty and reward people for saving, the Government intend to introduce a pension credit scheme. I merely wish to point to where that policy is going and to draw attention to how unsustainable it is. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we shall acquit ourselves of any charge in future that we were a party to pension mis-selling.
  I do not believe that the State Pension Credit Bill is sustainable. We shall go into the next general election with the working families tax credit and the beginnings of the pension credit, forgoing a reduction of 5p in the standard rate of tax to foot the bill for the tax credits up to the next election. There has been no debate about whether that is the best strategy or the right strategy, and such a debate is overdue. There are many who might feel that the objectives of the minimum income guarantee could be better met by a mixture of pension increases and tax cuts than by the model that the Government have adopted.
  I wish to take us forward to 2050. I direct attention, as the Government rightly argue in their consultation document, taking into account current prices, to what the

  675
  bill will be for taxpayers if the link with earnings is maintained. If it is not to be maintained, we should tell people quickly that stakeholder pensions will become more attractive because the pension credit will become less attractive.
  If we take the Government's figures and move to 2050, the end of the period covered by their consultation document, the cost of paying the pension credit, if it is linked to earnings in the meantime, will be the equivalent of 11p on the standard rate of tax, at today's prices. Does anyone think that we shall fight elections to maintain that sort of tax increase? I do not. For that reason, I do not believe that the link will be maintained. If it is not to be maintained, we should say that quickly. People will be deciding whether to save or not, and their decisions will be based on whether they think that the Government's proposals are viable in the longer run.
  An alternative to the spending of the sum that will be committed to pension credits over the time span that we are contemplating would be to increase by more than half the amount that we spend on the national health service. Are we seriously thinking about going into elections with a commitment that will so restrict our ability to spend money? Do we wish to tie ourselves into pension credits when those sums could be spent in alternative ways?
  We might wish to see that money spent on the standard retirement pension. At the end of the period outlined by the Government, we would have enough money to raise every pensioner above the minimum income guarantee in that year. Would not that be a better strategy than one that is reinforcing the means-testing strategy? In the longer run, that strategy will defeat the Government. People will adapt their behaviour to make the best of whatever framework the Government lay down. They are sensible and it is proper for them to take that approach. They should not be condemned for taking it.
  Whether it is desirable in the longer run that people decide that they should save less because they cannot make themselves better off by saving, and that they should in future depend more on the minimum income guarantee and pension credit, is a question that will increase in urgency as the years pass by.
  I thank the Opposition this evening for being so mean-spirited that they could not recognise both the efforts that the Government have made to look after the poorest pensioners and their commitment to do so, even if some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are increasingly wary about the strategy that they have adopted. This is not the place to exchange views about who is right and who is wrong. Events will show us who is right. Given the sums that will be involved in maintaining the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings—equally important is the pension credit being in line with earnings—these will be unsustainable objectives in the long run.
  As we come to the end of this Parliament, it will not be the Opposition who are asked about their position. We shall be asked by our electorate whether in the next Parliament we shall increase these two means-tested benefits in line with earnings. If we give in because we are worried about losing votes, we shall undermine still further the chance that many decent working people have who are urged to look after themselves and save for the future. We shall make the pensions problem that has been illustrated in the debate even worse than it is now.
  676
  The timing will be of the Government's own choosing, but the sooner we say that while we have introduced these two important initiatives, the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, and given them a boost by the link with earnings, they will not be sustainable in the longer run, the better. People will then know where they are. They will have a certainty that they do not have now. In the long term, we will have more rather than fewer people saving for their retirement.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: I frequently follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in debates on this subject. He is being a little less than charitable to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When we last debated these issues, I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agreed that the Government had probably acted from the best of motives in introducing stakeholder schemes and pension credit. We said, however, that the probable outcome would not be what they intended. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's speech illustrates better than the contributions of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the previous debate the difficulties that attach to what the Government are proposing. Indeed, I have long been an advocate of compulsory—
  Mr. Frank Field: That was not my objection; I was arguing that the motion showed a lack of generosity of spirit.
  Mr. Butterfill: Perhaps that is the way that politics is today.
  An element of compulsion is inevitable if we are to achieve the objectives that we would all like to achieve, although, as I shall demonstrate, as long as we retain the existing annuity regime, compulsion is not a viable alternative because people will rebel against it.
  Our great difficulty at the moment is that occupational schemes, which historically have been the mainstay of savings for retirement, are declining at an alarming and accelerating rate.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the more the Government send out the message that such schemes are the responsibility of Government, the less likely it is that employers will continue their historic role in occupational schemes, based on the belief that a decent occupational pension scheme is part of the pay that they give their workers and the conditions that they provide in an enlightened work place?
  Mr. Butterfill: That is certainly a danger. The Government have been sending out adverse signals on occupational pensions schemes, and some of their actions have been more serious. I recommend to the House the excellent document produced by the Association of Consulting Actuaries, "Pensions in Smaller Firms Survey 2001". Such firms employ 250 people or fewer, and their work force constitutes 55 per cent. of the total in this country. The document is sub-headed "Occupational

  677
  Pensions: the End of an Era?" The ACA is seriously worried that occupational pensions, as we have come to know them, are in terminal decline.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: I would like to make more progress, as I have taken rather a lot of interventions and been unable to develop my argument coherently. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue a little longer.
  We have received representations, including a briefing from the National Association of Pension Funds dated 1 February, which states:
  "46 companies had closed their final salary scheme to new members"
  during the current year to October, compared with 18 that closed in the previous year. The briefing continues:
  "13 schemes had switched from final salary to money purchase",
  compared with six in 2000. The trend is therefore accelerating. Unfortunately, that involves not only the smaller firms to which the ACA referred, but the very largest firms in the country, including Lloyds TSB, J. Sainsbury's, BT, Marks and Spencer, Whitbread and British Airways, all of which have gone down that route. Surely, that is an alarming prospect for the Government.
  Some reasons for the trend have already been alluded to by previous speakers, but are worth repeating and emphasising. The NAPF and the ACA believe that the biggest single problem is bureaucracy and red tape, particularly additional burdens incurred as a result of Government action in the past five years. To be fair, the Pensions Act 1995—it was passed, with the best of intentions, by my own party to deal with perceived problems, particularly following Maxwell, and to impose safeguards for those who were the beneficiaries of such schemes—in many ways compounded the problem. At the time, I argued that the cost of regulation would be unnecessarily high. I also argued that the cost of policing the system and ensuring compliance should not fall on firms providing the pensions; I said that the Government should accept that responsibility, thereby reducing the cost for employers. Otherwise, we would drive employers away from making such provision which, I am afraid, has proved to be the case.
  I very much welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of the appointment last autumn of Alan Pickering. An urgent review of the burden of regulation, and the possibility that the Government may still take over some costs, especially regulation costs, may yet prevent firms leaving the scheme altogether. FRS17 has already been referred to; the problem is not the Government's fault, as accounting standards are nothing to do with them, although they have an input in the measure, which brings us into line with US accounting standards. However, its short-term impact is extremely negative.
  The real difficulties have arisen by various routes. The changes in advance corporation tax were profoundly damaging. I am not sure that Labour Members appreciate the scale of the damage that was done by them. Tesco's scheme, for example, had to increase total contributions by 15 per cent. to compensate for the cost of the ACT changes. That is one firm alone, which has now come out
  678
  of a final salary scheme and gone into a defined contributions scheme. The lower investment returns have not helped, nor has increased life expectancy, earlier retirement or gaps in working careers. All those factors make the situation of occupational pensions much more difficult. The Government must act to make pension provision easier and more attractive for employers. Everything that the Government have done over the years that they have been in power has had the reverse effect on employers.
  The other possible route to help with pension provision is private provision. If we do not make it compulsory, we must encourage individuals to save for their retirement, but again we run into all sorts of circumstances arising from the existing legislation which make that profoundly unattractive. The least attractive of all is the annuities regime. The requirement to put all one's savings into an annuity at the end of the day, regardless of what one's life expectancy may be at the time, and regardless of the fact that one may wish to leave money to dependent relatives, is a profound disincentive.
  In correspondence with me, Ministers have suggested that the problem of annuities affects only the very rich. That is not true, although it is true that only those with above-average earnings tend to take out private provision. That could be altered in all sorts of ways, which we could discuss later. These people are not the very rich; they are the modestly off, for the most part. Only a tiny minority are the very rich about whom the Treasury is concerned.
  I know that the Association of British Insurers recently produced a report supporting the Government in their position on annuities. However, the members of the ABI are the principal providers of annuities—in fact, the only providers—and it might be thought that they could conceivably have a vested interest in maintaining a product from which they make considerable profit.
  The Government statistics hide the fact that millions are deterred by the annuity requirements from taking out pension policies at all. It is significant that many, many young people, who write to me because I am known to take an interest in these matters, tell me that they will not take out a policy because of those restrictions, and that they will instead turn to buy-to-let, for example.
  One reason why so many young people with surplus earnings are buying properties on the buy-to-let scheme—there has been an enormous and unhealthy growth in that; it has gone much too far—is that they see it as a more realistic way of saving than going through pensions. They are doing so without tax relief. They say, "Blow the tax relief. It is not worth having the tax relief, if those are the restrictions." That is a sad reflection on the present situation, which we must change.
  The chairman of the ACA states in the conclusion of his report:
  "We are also growing very concerned that the drift away from `good' occupational arrangements is accelerating towards a trot, if not quite a gallop."
  The situation is urgent, but the Government seem to think that there is nothing terribly wrong.

  679
  Unfortunately, as we have all seen, the take-up of stakeholder pensions to date has been extremely disappointing. We all hope that it may get better. In my view, it has had only one good effect—driving down charges.
  Mr. Frank Field: It is a very big one.
  Mr. Butterfill: Indeed, it is a very big improvement and it has been extremely valuable, but it was a side effect rather than the main reason for introducing the stakeholder pension.
  I am concerned that the thrust of Government policy is to take us further and further down the dependency route. It is now estimated that by 2050, the combination of minimum income guarantee and pension credit will mean that 65 per cent. of all pensioners will be on some sort of means-tested benefit. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but that is where they will be headed unless they do something about it—and soon.
  8.40 pm
  James Purnell: People of my age are not really all that interested in pensions. In fact, I only recently found out quite how uninterested they are. Having spent the weekend with the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb) at Ditchley park for a conference on pensions policy—on reflection, perhaps that does not make me all that typical of thirty-somethings. —the following Sunday evening, at a dinner with friends and flushed with the excitement of discussing actuarial projections of the forthcoming population bulge, I decided to try to interest my fellow diners in the implications for pensions policy. There was a short embarrassed silence, after which the conversation immediately returned to football.
  The issue of pensions should be at the centre of modern politics, however. When Labour came to power, about 2 million people were earning less than £70 a week. From next April, the minimum income guarantee will ensure that they earn £100 a week. It is often said that politics does not make any difference to people, but that £30 will make a genuine difference. Although it may not seem an enormous amount to broadsheet column writers, who often spend more than that on lunch each day, for the people of my constituency, it will often eliminate the difference between being able to shop properly and buy presents for their grandchildren or being able to heat their homes.
  Given the lack of interest on the part of journalists in tonight's debate, it is unlikely that every single word of it will be repeated in the papers, but people did not always find pensions policy uninteresting or difficult to understand. When the Beveridge report was printed, about 200,000 copies were sold. I read that people queued around the block in Kingsway to get copies from HMSO. Beveridge himself became a broadcasting celebrity and could be heard on radio even more often than the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) today. Of course, Beveridge would probably be gyrating in his grave if he could see what successive Governments have done to his plans. He expected almost everyone to benefit from the basic state pension, with national assistance reserved for the very few. Successive Governments of both parties have engineered a situation in which, for the past 25 years,
  680
  about 1.7 million people have been claiming means-tested benefits—a significant number, at just under one sixth of all pensioners. Beveridge expected the basic state pension to provide subsistence, but I defy anyone in the House to try to live on £72.50 a week these days.
  Why has this happened? It would be easy to play the game of party politics and try to assign blame to one side or the other, but the problems were inherent in the system that Beveridge bequeathed to us. He never defined the level of subsistence even in theory, and in practice, successive Governments have been unable to afford to provide a basic state pension at a level that would offer subsistence. Governments have therefore faced a choice of either leaving the poorest pensioners in poverty or targeting money at them. The more generous the means-tested benefits, however, the more pensioners will be affected and the more we risk the problem identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in terms of disincentives to save.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, but he elided the gap between targeting those most in need to means-testing. Does he accept that an alternative method of targeting those in need is targeting the oldest pensioners, the vast majority of whom are among the poorest? That would avoid the problems of means-testing.
  James Purnell: That is an interesting point, and I am interested in other ways of targeting those most in need. However, a Government could not rely purely on the policy that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because it would omit people outside a specific age group and perpetuate the problem of benefiting richer pensioners, although they are few.
  What did Beveridge plan for our society? He expected most women to stay at home and their husbands to be employed and thus to provide for them. He failed to provide for the growing number of carers, and for people who are unemployed, take career breaks, change jobs and have been unable, through state or private provision, to build up sufficient income for retirement.
  Those basic problems have plagued Ministers with responsibility for pensions since 1945, and many of the resultant reforms have failed. I do not know how many people today remember Boyd-Carpenter's reforms to the second state pension, which involved different levels and an earnings-related element. How many people remember the Labour Government's attempt in the 1960s to introduce a minimum income pension, which was much like our minimum income guarantee?
  Many Ministers have come up against the stark reality of pensions policy—
  Mr. Butterfill: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about Beveridge. I am sure that he knows that Beveridge proposed building up a fund at the outset and making no distributions until an adequate amount had been accumulated. The post-war Labour Government rejected that recommendation, and that created many problems for subsequent Ministers.
  James Purnell: That is exactly the case. I believe that Jim Griffiths made the decision because, at the end of 1945, after Britain had won the war, he did not believe

  681
  that a Government could tell people who had suffered for the past 50 years from a system that was partial and left many dependent on charity from the National Assistance Board that they would have to wait another 10 or 15 years for contributions to be built up. I therefore understand the reason for the decision and I doubt whether any hon. Member proposes adopting the system that Beveridge was planning.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman appeared to be slightly critical of Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who devised opting out, on which all private sector provision since 1958 has been built. Does he not agree that, whether the figure is £600 billion or £700 billion, it is due to the work of Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
  James Purnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was not criticising Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who established a principle. However, I believe that it was a slightly panicked and inadequate response by the then Government to Dick Crossman's work for the Labour party in opposition, and in practice, it failed to deliver. We had to wait for a Labour Government to introduce SERPS, which tackled the matter two decades later.
  Pensions reform is rarely considered a success. The costs are felt immediately, but the benefits are not experienced until a Government have long passed into history. The objectives of pensions policy are mutually contradictory, and there are always losers. Even when a Government get something right, it is often too complicated for people to understand at the time.
  Against that background, far from being a failure, the Government's policy will be adjudged by history a significant success. It has been expensive—about £6 billion by next year—but poor pensioners can now be sure that, for at least the rest of this Parliament, the minimum income guarantee will increase in line with earnings. That is a major change from what we inherited. Some who claim to argue on behalf of the poorest pensioners argue for a return to the linking of the basic state pension with earnings, but that would benefit those people less by reducing the amount of money available.
  Mr. Boswell: I know that the hon. Gentleman has advised Ministers over the years, as indeed did I at one stage. Will he advise the Secretary of State to extend that guarantee beyond the current Parliament?
  James Purnell: No Government can make proposals for a Parliament for which they have not been elected. It is certainly right that we have made the promise for the rest of this five-year term, and we will no doubt consider it again when we write our manifesto.
  I do not mind pleading guilty to the charge that the Government have increased means-testing. Faced with a choice between spreading the £6 billion among all pensioners and targeting some of it on the poorest pensioners, through the minimum income guarantee, I would be proud to choose the latter. The important issue is not the number of pensioners whose income is assessed but whether the assessment undermines dignity.
  The means test gained a bad reputation in the early part of the 20th century, when it meant frequent visits by the means-test men and detailed interrogations about
  682
  household income, including even a youngster's paper round or anything that an elderly relative who came to live with the family might possess. I believe that George Orwell called the means test an encouragement to tittle-tattle and to the informer. A neighbour's jealousy about a new coat or pair of shoes could lead to a visit from the means-test men. It is not surprising that so many people grew up absolutely dedicated to ensuring that they would never have to rely on the means test, which at that time was genuinely a matter of shame.
  The reticence of many pensioners today about claiming their entitlement stems from their memories of those days. Unfortunately, that reticence will not be eased by this debate and Opposition claims that the increase in means-testing is in itself a bad thing. In that sense, this debate will not in any way encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
  It is important to start to change the language that we use about means-testing. Pensioners are entitled to these benefits, which are no longer a quasi-charitable donation to them in their old age. They have paid for them through their taxes, just as they have paid for the basic state pension. We should tell them that they should claim this income as of right. Moreover, rather than scaring them about means-testing, we should make it clear to them that the procedure for claiming the minimum income guarantee, and the pension credit when it comes into force, has been significantly simplified: the form has been cut from 40 pages to 10, and people claiming the credit will be assessed on their income not every week but only once every five years. They will be asked to provide the information at the time of claiming the basic state pension, so a far larger number will receive the credit automatically.
  Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman said that pensioners would be assessed every five years. Will he comment on how they will fare when their circumstances change within the five-year period? Are there not real difficulties in coping with those circumstances?
  James Purnell: It is an important point, but Baroness Hollis answered it in the other House when she made it clear that there are only four or five circumstances that will require reassessment: the death of a partner; moving overseas; moving house; and another one or two that escape me. We must have some flexibility in the system to allow such major changes to be taken into account—we can do that in a simple way—but the important thing is that the vast majority of pensioners will be assessed only once every five years, which makes the means test much simpler than it was.
  My noble Friend also made it clear that a huge range of items of information that can currently be required no longer will be. With pensioner credit, pensioners will no longer have to report savings of over £6,000 or child maintenance payments. They will not have to report student grants or loans, if they have gone into higher education or the university of the third age, and they will not have to report rent on land or on a second property.
  All in all, this will be a system in which pensioners are entitled to the income because they have paid for it through their taxes over their working lives. It will he a simple, non-intrusive system, with changes only once every five years. That is a universe away from the means tests of the early part of the last century; that is why we need to rehabilitate the means test.

  683
  The policy choice that we face is stark—between targeting money on the poorest pensioners and spreading it equally among rich and poor; between putting the investment into pensions, as the Government have done, and have pledged to continue to do, and cutting spending on pensions, as the Conservatives would have to do to meet their public spending goal of 35 per cent. of GDP. They tried to wriggle out of that, and complained when the Secretary of State mentioned it earlier, but that is no use. That aim has been broadly stated both by the party leader and by the shadow Chancellor, and if that is their goal they will have to tell us at some point where those cuts would come from.
  We heard no policy proposals from the hon. Member for Havant, but the agenda behind his speech was fairly clear, and it is worrying. The Conservatives would reduce the number of people being means-tested by cutting the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, and claiming that the slack should be taken up by stakeholder pensions. They would then say that if that were not possible, it would be because of design faults in the Government's policy.
  If that is the way the Conservatives plan to save the billions of pounds that would have to come out of pensions to meet their goal of 35 per cent. of GDP, they should be ashamed of themselves. They know as well as anyone else that for a significant number of people in lower-income households there will never be any sense in saving huge amounts in an occupational or private pension, because it would be much better for them to spend that money as income now, on feeding their families, rather than saving a tiny amount for their retirement, which would probably be dwarfed by the benefits that they received from the state.
  The earnings limit for the minimum income guarantee is a major departure for pensions policy. The Conservatives make the charge that that reduces incentives to save. Of course that is true, but it was also true of income support, which the MIG replaced. The reason why it now affects more people is simply that the MIG is more generous than income support. In introducing the pension credit, we are therefore addressing a problem that has been inherent in our pension system for decades. As Lord Fowler said in the other place:
  "I should have preferred it if my government had introduced the pension credit … It is long overdue, and my hope is that it will provide support for some of the most deserving people in this country." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 165.]
  Of course I am aware that many people say that the pension credit is too complicated. I look forward to examining the details of the scheme during the Select Committee's next inquiry, which will be into that very issue. The outcome of the pension credit is simple, even if its workings may be complicated. Pensioners will keep 60 per cent. of any private pension, which will make a significant difference to 5.5 million people. We have already started to see progress: more than half a million fewer pensioners now live in households with a low income than did in 1997, and people of working age now contribute £19 billion more in real terms to non-state pensions.
  The Opposition say that the Government's policy is failing. Is that why stakeholder pensions have been welcomed by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and
  684
  Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), by Lord Fowler in the other place, and even by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman? The Government's policy will stand the most important test of any pensions policy—the test of time.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I was disappointed that the Secretary of State responded to the raising of serious issues in what I felt was a party political, knockabout way. There are two clear interrelated problems. One is that the combination of measures intended to address the need for those who are less well-off to have a decent income in retirement—the minimum income guarantee, quickly followed by the pension credit to help stakeholders—has put in place a system whose original thinking was pretty short-term but which, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out, is highly unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.
  A provision that will cost the equivalent of 11 p on income tax—about £26 billion in today's money—and put 65 per cent. of the population on means-tested benefit is highly unlikely to survive in the long term. A further serious effect is that it has demotivated employers' in their efforts to provide proper pension schemes for their staff. Everyone in the pensions industry now thinks that the Government's professed objective of reversing the 60 per cent. state funding versus 40 per cent. private funding of pensions is completely unrealistic, and that we are going in the other direction.
  Other hon. Members have said quite a bit about the decline in occupational schemes, but I should stress that they have been one of the British economy's great successes. They are one reason why Britain has enjoyed lower tax rates than the countries of euroland—even under a Labour Government—and why the British economy is doing better than the economies of continental Europe, yet we face the prospect of a serious reversal. Membership of occupational schemes has declined by 500,000 in the past decade, and by 2 million in the past 30 years. As has been cited, 28 per cent. of men and 26 per cent. of women have no occupational employment scheme, whereas 10 years ago the figures were only 19 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively. The movement away from occupational final salary schemes to money purchase schemes is accelerating. In the past five years, 24 per cent. of firms have made such a shift, and 46 major companies have closed their final salary schemes in the past year alone.
  The key point—it is perhaps not realised—is that, typically, contributions to money purchase schemes are about 7 per cent. less per annum than contributions to final salary schemes. Just when it appears that real returns on investments are declining, as measured by the long-term yield on gilts, savings in pensions are actually being reduced. As a result, in the next 30 years the great majority of people—a generation that will aspire to higher living standards—will not enjoy the pension provision that the present generation enjoy, whether from final salary or money purchase schemes.
  The moral is that there will be a greater burden on taxpayers and the state, at a time when the population will be ageing, the number of people in work declining and the number of retired people increasing. As it stands, the policy does not stack up and is not capable of surviving

  685
  the next 20 or 30 years. Above all, pensions policies should be long term. It is no good trying to address a genuine short-term problem by cobbling together a policy that is impossible to deliver and that damages long-term provision.
  I am horrified by what I see happening today. Typically, employers will say, "Your remuneration package is worth so much, so between 7 and 10 per cent. can be put into a money purchase pension, or you can have the money." Quite understandably, many people under 35 are saying, "We'll have the money." As a result, they have no form of occupational provision. They say, "We've got the pension guarantee and the minimum income guarantee—we don't really need such provision. The state will be there to look after us." As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, that is unrealistic.
  There is a positive angle. In America, independent retirement accounts—IRAs—and 401 Ks have been extremely successful in reviving pension saving in the private sector. In Canada, more than 40 per cent. of the population have a regulated retirement savings plan. Under that system, there is no obligation to buy an annuity on retirement.
  The case has been argued in different places. It is unwise of the Government not to recognise that when ordinary people up and down the country save for their retirement, they do not want to be locked into buying what they perceive as a bad-value annuity. That is why, increasingly, people save and buy properties. In the past, thank the Lord, they used personal equity plans and today they use individual savings accounts, but they are not attracted by pension arrangements with an annuity obligation.
  When he was at the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was a keen promoter of the independent pension account. It was envisaged to be much like an ISA—a tax wrapper, but subject to the pension rules. It would be extremely simple: there would be no requirement to belong to a pension scheme on top of it, people could save for their old age with a mixture of ISAs and IPAs—one governed by pension rules and one by ISA rules—and then provide for their old age themselves. It was thought that it would suit many people who were self-employed, especially women, who might not work for their full careers. However, the IPA was stillborn—it has been a complete failure, with no providers and no takers because it adds costs. There is the double cost of belonging to a pension scheme, as well as the IPA charges. Moreover, there is the terminal problem of IPA moneys having to go into an annuity upon retirement.
  I caution the Government: they have had five years to address pension policies. We were told that the stakeholder pension was to be the main solution. The Minister for Pensions was a little disingenuous on one occasion in arguing that the people who have bought stakeholder pensions are those whom the Government intended should buy them. The Government clearly intended stakeholder pensions as a savings vehicle for ordinary people, not just as a tax benefit vehicle. The take-up rate has been disappointing. The large numbers of corporate schemes are merely intended to meet the legal requirements, and the members thereof are few and far between.
  686
  It is unwise for the Government to continue to argue that they place their hopes of private sector pension accumulation on the stakeholder. It is not happening, nor does it look as though it will. I wish that it would, but I do not think that it will until the annuity issue is addressed. Furthermore, it will not happen easily while there is the promise of the Government's minimum income guarantee and pension credit. People who find it hard to save for their pension wonder why on earth they should bother if they know that they will be looked after out of overall taxation.
  It is a growing, invisible problem. It is ridiculous that, in an age of greater affluence, the majority of people will be less well provided for in their retirement than the generation coming up to retirement. There is the risk that the policy will lead to the same problems found in continental Europe. Retirement income will become a massive burden on taxation, leading to excessive taxes on employment, which will, in turn, damage overall economic performance. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want. Indeed, their commitment to reverse the swing from 40:60 to 60:40 suggests that they want to go in the other direction.
  Pension policy is not working, and I would like to see greater cross-party collaboration to get it right. However, the onus is on the Government to recognise the problems. Let us hope that the Pickering report will propose some solutions. This is not a party political issue. The Government are the Government; it is not for the Opposition to make the Government's policy on pensions, but there are major policies to address, and address quickly.
  9.9 pm
  John Mann: I rise humbly after hearing some of the earlier speeches. I am among those new Members who have great problems in working out whether the transfer value of my previous occupational pension is such that I should move it into the parliamentary scheme. I suspect, even so, that my knowledge and instincts are somewhat greater than those of the vast majority of my constituents, particularly those who are 45 or younger.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made a thoughtful speech, but his final point perplexed me. He spoke about young people and buy-to-let schemes. I do not mean to question his remark, which I am sure was quite accurate, but it would be fairly safe to bet that no young people in my constituency will buy to let rather than take out a pension. I have received no correspondence on the notion of pension planning, and I suspect that my predecessor also received little. Pension planning is not much discussed at dinner or in pubs and clubs in my constituency.
  The "live for today" mentality is not new to our society, but it has increased. That is not the fault of any political party, but it is a key problem that we need to address. Those who are expert in pensions and who give me their views in my surgeries are retired people. They can quote me the value of the BT shares that they expectantly bought some time ago. They can tell me about the windfall that they have not had and can tell me year by year—some of them, day by day—the value of their holdings. They are waiting for a change in fortune so that they can cash in on their windfalls, and they are precisely the people who will hold the Government to account.

  687
  Indeed, the mistaken policy of the 75p increase in pensions was repeatedly rammed down our throats on the doorstep during the election by a section of the population who spoke from an informed, not an ignorant, standpoint. We need a civic debate about pensions, and education that reaches younger people. Perhaps it could start in schools—I am not sure whether that occurs at present. Certainly, young workers or students in higher education need to know what it all means to help with their forward planning. If we expect them to take responsibility, we must realise that it will not happen unless they have knowledge.
  Home ownership is preponderant, but less usual in the coalfields. A great phenomenon—pronounced as we move to the south coast, but existing in microcosm in the coalfields—is the way in which homeowners downsize their houses as they reach their chosen age of retirement. Usually, it happens once, though sometimes it is more frequent. Perhaps the most important thing that the Government could do for my constituents would be to safeguard retirement income by encouraging housing regeneration among former mine housing stock. Some homes are owned, but are in an appalling state of repair. Others are owned by private landlords, who bought them from the National Coal Board. Those homes ought to be occupied by private owners, giving them a legacy that they could cash in at some stage for their pensions. My point may strike the debate at something of a tangent, but it would help with forward planning.
  My next point relates to the role of the trade unions. The case for occupational pensions has been made strongly several times during the debate. However, the whole ethos of such pensions goes hand in hand with strong and effective workplace representation where there is negotiation with employers. Pension contributions are deferred earnings that should be negotiated and safeguarded by workplace representatives. In coming years, we must as a priority increase the roles, responsibilities and powers of pension fund trustees to safeguard those funds.
  In this country, we tend to take a little Englander—or rather a little United Kingdomer—view on pensions. We might look to Germany for examples of the assistance given to pension fund trustees or, more usefully, at the fundamental role played by trade unions in Denmark and Belgium in the provision of pensions. We need not adopt their programmes wholesale, but they can inform our debate on how unions can promote occupational pensions.
  Indeed, I would go further in respect of the role of trade unions in stakeholder pensions. I am surprised that there was no criticism on that point from either of the Opposition Front Benchers. We have heard much from trade union leaders in the past 48 hours. Would that those leaders put the same passion and thought into the important issue of stakeholder pensions. By seizing that issue—by using stakeholder pensions in negotiations—unions could begin to recreate part of their traditional role in the workplace and in society. That role goes back more than a century and was itself part of the genesis of the occupational pension programme.
  That is only a partial solution within a partial solution; nevertheless it is waiting to be grabbed. If the unions will not come to the Government, the Government should go to them and ask that they play their rightful historical role by promoting stakeholder pensions along with occupational pensions.
  688
  The problems of short-termism as regards the Government's record are somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Government are doing quite well, although the Opposition obviously do not want to admit it. The basic pension is up. The minimum income guarantee is up. The winter fuel allowance is popular.
  I am all in favour of our continuing to please today's pensioners. Far be it from me to do anything other than applaud our Government and to expose the changes that would result from a tax cut should the Opposition come to power. However, I urge Ministers to take a longer view—beyond today's pensioners to those of 20, 30 or 40 years hence. That will require courage from the Government—as it would from any Government—but my plea is that we should have that courage.
  The Government may be in power for a long period—naturally, I hope so. The last Government were in power for a long time—18 years—and they squandered the opportunity of giving us a long-term pensions policy that would benefit future generations. Let us ensure that our Government do not make the same mistake.
  9.19 pm
  Andrew Selous: I very much welcome the Government's stated intention to increase from 40 to 60 per cent. the share of pensioners' incomes that will come from the private sector, not only because of the increase in independence and security that will be afforded to those pensioners, but because it will release more funds from the public purse to be spent on other public services, such as our schools and national health service. I also pay tribute to the attention that the Government have paid to less well-off pensioners; we have an important obligation to current pensioners.
  The decline in funded pensions, however, is extremely worrying. The most recent family resources survey shows a reduction in the proportion of employees with occupational or personal pensions across all age groups. A new Government report tells us that by 2050, when 40 per cent. of pensioner incomes are supposed to come from the state, 65 per cent. of pensioners will, in fact, rely on the pension credit. Those are the current forecasts.
  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest report on poverty says that a substantial fall in the number of poor pensioners is unlikely
  "until and unless the Government's policies aimed at encouraging greater use of private pensions start having an effect in the longer term."
  It is regrettable that we are heading in the other direction. What is most regrettable in the decline in funded pensions is the decline in final salary or defined-benefit schemes. Many companies have recently stopped providing such schemes to their employees. Lloyds TSB, Sainbury's, British Telecom, ICI, Marks and Spencer and, not least, Bedfordshire's very own Whitbread, have all recently ended their final salary schemes, and pension fund trustees tell me that the complexity of regulation, the contracting out rules and the market circulars are largely to blame.
  I am told that, whereas only two or three years ago a pension fund trustee would have to take a slim file of papers to meetings, he now probably needs to take a ring binder 4 in thick to carry the different documents needed to cope with the complexity of regulation. So is it any wonder that those schemes are in decline? The regrettable

  689
  outcome of the demise of those schemes is that benefits are no longer provided to dependants. Death-in-service pensions, rather than lump sums, used to be payable to surviving spouses and dependent children; they are not generally payable with money purchase schemes.
  The principles that underlie our pensions system should be those of simplicity, clarity and a strong incentive to get our young people to save. Those principles are lacking in the current rules that govern annuities. Pensioners tell us that the requirement to buy an annuity at 75 provides poor value. Contrary to what Ministers have told us, that is an issue for vast numbers of people—some 10.5 million workers in this country have contracted out, so half our work force are affected and have an interest in annuity matters.
  The crux of the issue is inheritability, which has been touched on by several hon. Members. Under the current rules, an annuity is paid and if people die a few years into their pensions, that is it. People take a longer-term view with their savings and pensions. One of the reasons why interest has increased in the buy-to-let schemes is that the assets belong to people, just as their houses, cars or any other assets do. We should do well to remember that people aspire to that.
  I should also like to raise the issue of what rights employees have to the surpluses on their pension funds. They have contributed to those funds, so it does not seem right that the company can simply take them back. That ownership issue needs to be explored further.
  Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a final salary scheme, the employer has an obligation to pay the percentage of that final salary, come what may. Therefore, the issue of who owns the surplus is very much more complex than he seems to suggest.
  Andrew Selous: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge of this subject. In terms of getting people to take an interest in their pensions and providing them with an incentive to do so, the issue of inheritability merits further study. However, I appreciate his point that it is a complex issue.
  According to a report by Oliver, Wyman & Company in September last year, the savings gap in this country at the moment is £27 billion. That is the difference between what we should have invested to treat future generations of elderly people in a respectful way and what we have invested at present. The bad news is that that savings gap is projected to increase by a further £6 billion over the next five years. There are several reasons why that gap is projected to worsen. We have heard about the complexity of current schemes, and about the lack of inheritability. We are also told that there will be a net decrease of 9,000 in the number of financial advisers across the country. It is estimated that about 3.6 million people on lower incomes have no proper access to financial advice.
  An independent financial adviser in my constituency contacted me on Friday in despair about the Government's current proposals for independent financial advisers, and about the new proposals that will move on from polarisation. He is in fear of losing his job, and his firm is in a state of paralysis. That means that another group of people will not have access to independent financial advice, which is indeed regrettable.
  690
  I deal now with the subject of means-testing, which is reflected in the motion. Many distinguished Members from all parties understand the problems of means-testing, not least the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who have clearly acknowledged the difficulties involved, particularly for pensioners. Indeed, the Chancellor of Exchequer has boasted that he would like means-testing for pensioners to be outlawed. We know that 580,000 pensioners do not claim their income support and that 1,215,000 do not claim their council tax benefit. In total, there is £3 billion of unclaimed benefits. We know that older people in particular have a difficulty with claiming benefit. Although they are entitled to it, they worry about going along to the Benefits Agency. We know that that should not be the case but it is the fact, and we must recognise the way in which people regard such issues.
  In 1995, only 38 per cent. of pensioners were on means-tested support of any sort. That figure is projected to increase to 57 per cent. by 2003. We have heard the future projections up to 2050, so we know that the trend will carry on in that direction. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that recent pension announcements
  "look set to create a substantial increase in means testing."
  The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, published a report on pensioner poverty in August 2000, which states:
  "The increase in non-means tested pension is inevitable and should be done sooner rather than later."
  That was the view of the Select Committee only a year and a half ago. Clearly, the Government have not heeded its advice. As a member of that Select Committee, I hope that the Government will heed our advice when we consider the pension credit, which is the subject of our next report.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): In an encouraging clutch of stories about pensions in today's press, both tabloids and broadsheets, I was struck by a remark by Mr. Mark Duke of Towers Perrin who was quoted in The Times as saying:
  "People expect a lot, aren't doing enough and don't understand their pensions at all."
  I tend to agree. I am reminded of the man who expressed himself confusedly on a complicated topic, was advised to attend a conference, came back from it and opined that he was still confused but at a somewhat higher level. I suspect that the debate will produce the same effect.
  There are real and simple points to grasp, and it behoves us all to remember them. The savings ratio is at an historically low level. That is unsustainable. There is an estimated historic gap in savings provision of £27 billion. That is unsustainable. The hit is being taken not by the rich, the poor or any particular class but involves nearly everyone who is still in work and who in due course hopes to retire. One of the most encouraging features of the debate is the sense of mutuality. We all have a common problem to face. It will not be solved within the span of a single Parliament and it requires collective action preceded by collective debate.
  The debate has been marked by some interesting and worthwhile contributions by Back-Bench Members. I certainly wish to mention those by Conservative

  691
  Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made a speech of characteristic balance and erudition. He is a loyal supporter of occupational pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) complemented that by chipping in with his knowledge of investment and the City. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) brings to such debates a passionate commitment to all groups in our society.
  I do not want to suggest that my hon. Friends were the sole contributors. As we would expect, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a magisterial contribution. If we are ever in the business of Government swatting, we may need him to add his voice to ours. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) was more supportive of the Government. Nevertheless, he presented with honesty some of the dilemmas that have to be faced. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) also made a characteristic contribution. If the trade unions are not as active in stakeholder pensions as one might have expected, it is possibly because they do not see them as a good deal for their members. We may need to return to that.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) usually helps us along. He shared some interesting insights with us, as he often does.
  Ms Ann Coffey:A new alliance.
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady must not tempt me. Perhaps she is trying to build a consensus.
  The Secretary of State's contribution still displayed his misplaced self-assurance, however. There was a whiff of complacency and inertia in the face of a fast deteriorating situation. How unlike our dear Marshal Foch in 1918. That distinguished generalissimo of the armies, faced with the German spring offensive of that year, acknowledged the problem honestly by saying, "We are in a terrible mess. The situation is excellent. We shall attack." This Secretary of State does not have the spirit for that. He cowers in his bunker and confines his offensive action to occasional sniping exercises at the Opposition.
  Let me deal with our main concerns about the pension scheme, which are touched on in our substantive motion. There is an extraordinary black hole in pension provision, as revealed in the brilliant forensic introduction to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). However much the Government try to puff up the level of current contributions to pension schemes, they have had to reveal a staggering deficiency of £100 billion in the value of funds that were in pension schemes in 1999. Frankly, that could enter the "Guinness Book of Records" as the biggest accountancy write-off of all time. Were Oscar Wilde here, I am sure that he would say that to lose £100 million by statistical adjustment might be seen as a misfortune, but to lose £100 billion looks like carelessness.
  If the answer is to shoot the messenger, take the statistics away, and attack the Opposition for daring to say that there is something odd, that shows a gross misconception of our role. I hope that the matter will be sorted out, and for a reason that I will touch on in a moment, there is a systematic problem that merits closer and more reflective discussion.
  Let us remember at any rate that any such reduction in pension funds, whatever the size, is a hit on the value of funds, and, in the real world, reflects funds' collective
  692
  ability to service pensions. We have only to think of the consequences of the write-down for Equitable Life pensions to see that the value of the funds really matters.
  Pension funds also cast some doubt on the veracity of the figures for contribution inflows, to which the Secretary of State referred. I am highly suspicious and sceptical that if, on our calculations, self-administered arrangements, which account for 6 million occupational pensioners, bring in £14 billion annually to the party of contributions, that must logically mean that that group and personal pension schemes, which account for fewer pensioners, must bring in £58 billion; that seems implausible. There must be an element of double-counting and asset transfers.
  The second area of grief is the inexorable decline in defined-contribution schemes. That was well set out in the National Association of Pension Funds annual survey, which broadly coincided with our last pensions debate. Every week, the pensions press brings further bad news. For example, this week, Professional Pensions leads with the story, "Ernst and Young closes DB plan amid FRS 17 fears". I apologise to non-regular readers for the rather terse and technical presentation, but perhaps I can draw out two salient points from the article.
  First, Ernst and Young is rightly described in the text as an "accountancy giant". Presumably, therefore, even if I do not know, it at least knows what it is talking about. Secondly, the problem identified is Ernst and Young's worry over the new accounting standard FRS 17, which is only now beginning to work its way through the system and will doubtless involve many other firms in unpleasant decisions, as they look at their profit and loss accounts, the provisions that they will need to make, the profits that they can declare and the dividends that they can pay, with the consequential effect on pension schemes and the incomes thereof.
  Let us note, too, that the Ernst and Young decision does not merely close the defined-benefit scheme to new entrants. It starts the process of winding up the scheme altogether and the transfer to defined contributions. However good, that replacement defined-contribution scheme must at least increase the element of risk to the individual pension investor.
  Then, perhaps, we should look at what is happening to defined-contribution or money purchase schemes themselves. The same front page, which I offer to the Minister to save time if he has not been able to read the whole analysis, adjacently reports the study by actuarial consultants William M. Mercer, which predicts that up to 3 million occupational scheme members and individuals will contract back into the state second pension scheme over the next five years because, according to its Mr. Dick Strattan, the Government's contracting-out rebates
  "fail to take proper account of current market conditions, such as lower interest rates and investment returns."
  He goes on:
  "On our calculations, they account for considerably less than the full value of the state pension foregone—in some instances, arguably as little as half."
  That of course rings a bell with those already familiar with the stakeholder pension situation. We discussed that in detail last time, hence its relatively lower profile in this debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant showed that most of the uptake lay outside the target groups. [Interruption.] It is no good the Secretary of State

  693
  attempting to laugh it off—he does not know where there has been uptake. In any event, uptake is rather disappointing. A trickle of money continues to go in, but Ministers are dragging their feet. They are most reluctant to give a now overdue answer to my question about measures to improve uptake—they do not know whether they want to improve it, or, if they do, how to do so.
  Ministers have been less than frank about pointing out that proper advice on whether to take out a stakeholder pension might be charged as independent advice, and so be extra to the 1 per cent. administration charge of which they are so proud. None the less, the Government continue their lavish advertising campaign on general pensions awareness, which is costing almost £10 million. The authentic voice of new Labour is heard in a written answer given to me last week by the Minister for Pensions. It states:
  "Changing attitudes towards planning for retirement is not a straightforward task and will take time. We are planning to continue pensions education activity." — [Official Report, 31 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 537W.]
  We have been warned.
  The Government have, however, made it clear that they intend no major activity in respect of annuities. They are bent on disregarding the view of the House so clearly expressed on 11 January in giving Second Reading to the admirable Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). By so doing, they deny choice to pensioners.
  The Government cannot even manage to get their own consultation paper out on time. It is to come out tomorrow, but that is at least six weeks late, which is typical of the Government's dilatoriness. I understood that the outcome of the annuities consultation exercise was to he published before Christmas; I might be misinformed, but I understand that Christmas was approximately six weeks ago.
  If the Secretary of State does not get his administrative act together, the new pension service, of which Ministers are all so proud and which will have to service 11 million pensioners and 5 million pension credit beneficiaries, might, as Age Concern warns, prove unequal to the task.
  Mr. Webb: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on where and when hon. Members will first read the detail of the annuities report?
  Mr. Boswell: It would be unwise, and possibly invidious, to say. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, in the nicest possible way. The Government will sit there, fiddling like Nero over the general pensions front, until the US Cavalry in the shape of Alan Pickering reports with what I hope will be a major deregulatory package. The sooner that report is received and acted on, the better.
  Meanwhile, the apostles of complexity on the Treasury Bench add new touches and torments in the State Pension Credit Bill. They are indeed spending a couple of billion pounds a year, but they do so at a remarkably heavy price in complexity and disincentives to saving. In the long term, the costs might escalate to a staggering £26 billion—but if one has just wiped £100 billion off the funds, £26 billion does not seem too much between friends.
  694
  Our motion is ready to give the Government credit for their objectives where and if credit is due. We welcome their stated aim of increasing from 40 to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioner income coming from the private sector. Delivery, not intention, is the problem. We remember that it was the Labour Government who set their face against an increase in means-testing, and we judge their intentions against their achievements in that respect. By 2003, pension credits are likely to involve 57 per cent. of pensioners, and that proportion might rise to two thirds as the scheme rolls out. Two thirds of our pensioners might be on means-tested benefits in future; however softened, it will still be means-testing.
  Opposite sits the sorcerer in the shape of the Secretary of State, and the sorcerer's apprentice in the shape of the Minister for Pensions, who will shortly reply to the debate. They like to brandish the goodies they put into the pot, and they enjoy giving it the occasional stir to keep things apparently busy. Now they are simply sitting back, waiting for Pickering. The pensions pot beneath them is holed and draining fast. There will soon be little left except thin gruel for the taxpayer.
  To return to my beginning in these remarks, and to adapt my initial quotation from Mr. Duke of Towers Perrin, in pensions it is the Government who are not doing enough, and they do not understand pensions at all.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney):I came to London this morning full of hope that, the Conservative Opposition having initiated the second debate in 10 weeks on pension policy, we would learn something. Of course, it has been a policy-free debate on the part of Conservative Members. We started with a spokesman from the Opposition Dispatch Box and we finished on the Siegfried line. We had crocodile tears, scaremongering and hand wringing from one or two of the old-fashioned one-nation Tories who have been banished to the Back Benches for ever. We never received one view from the Conservatives about what they would do for older people, whether in terms of a pension policy or any other policy related to older people.
  The Leader of the Opposition would hit pensioners hard. He is a bitter opponent of both the winter fuel scheme and the minimum income guarantee. He has said:
  "MIG is a huge rise in spending…I can think of nothing to recommend it".
  Yet about 2,000 of his constituents benefit from it. By attacking the MIG, do Conservative Members want to continue to withdraw resources from the poorest pensioners?
  Mr. Boswell: The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of not producing any policies. I think he will have noticed that we are unlikely to be in a position to enact any of our policies until after the next general election. We shall certainly do so when the time comes. I ask him what he would like to do at the next election. Will he commit the Government to maintaining the earnings link for pension credit after the next election? When he has answered that question, he may start lecturing us about our policy.
  Mr. McCartney: It is a weak excuse to say, "I will not be in power for a generation", and not give the public the Opposition's view of their pension policy. As for the

  695
  minimum income guarantee, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear time and time again that the arrangements are for this Parliament. When we come to the next general election and present our manifesto, we will once again be the only party with policies to tackle pensioner poverty and, more important, to ensure in future that there will be no pensioners living in poverty, which is what we inherited from the Conservative Government.
  We have heard winter fuel payments described as "cock-eyed", yet 20,000 of the Leader of the Opposition's constituents receive winter fuel payments. The right hon. Gentleman supported value added tax on fuel and voted for it to increase to 17.5 per cent. If that were not enough, let me refer to his view on the basic state pension. He said that it
  "should become a function of the Private Sector".
  That is the Tories' hidden agenda. That is why they have taken it off the website. That is why they are not giving an opinion in public. It is the same agenda as was rubbished at the last election. It will be rubbished at the next election and the election after that. It will be rubbished until the Tories learn something about working with older people in a more effective way.
  Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady, and I will explain why. First, she has not been in her place for more than half the debate. Secondly, we were debating poverty in Scotland last week, and the Scottish National party did not turn up for that debate either. I tell the hon. Lady to stop being a part-time Member and to attend debates in this place more regularly.
  I have read the records. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is the Baldrick of the Conservative Front Bench. In March 1996, he said:
  "BSE is not a risk in the normal sense of the word."
  Would you trust this man with your pension fund, Madam Deputy Speaker?
  The Tories failed not just once, but time and time again, in the 18 years they were in power, when they consigned millions year on year to a life of poverty, treating them with utter contempt. They failed to tackle the legacy of pensioner poverty, but we introduced the MIG so that the poorest pensioners will be at least £15 better off. If the Tories were in power, they would withdraw that and cut £15 from the pensions of 2 million of the poorest pensioners.
  We inherited the SERPS mess, which affected millions of people. We are putting in £50 billion over the next 50 years to put that error right. We made sure that compensation was paid to those who were conned through the mis-selling scandal; again, thousands and thousands of people were swindled. The total cost of putting that right is estimated at some £13.5 billion. Conservatives may have come to debate holes in pension policy, but the only holes in pension policy in the past two decades were created by their party; it has taken the Labour party in government to plug those holes.
  Ten weeks ago, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that stakeholder pensions were a flop. Tonight, we have the latest figures; from a standing start
  696
  in eight months, 637,000 people working in the private sector who, a year ago, did not have a pension or the possibility of having one, now have one because of the Labour Government. Some 310,000 employers, over 80 per cent. of those who should register, have already registered; a year ago, those employers were not prepared to provide a vehicle for their staff to share in a pension when they retire.
  Mr. Willetts: I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to correct the assertion that he has just made. He said that 600,000 people who did not previously have a pension have taken out stakeholder pensions. Will he confirm that we know that 170,000 of those people already had a pension from the construction industry scheme, and that many others had concurrent pensions? Perhaps the only people who did not have a pension, and about whom the Minister is right, are grandchildren and non-working wives.
  Mr. McCartney: The construction industry's old pension scheme was closed down. If it were not for stakeholder pensions, 170,000 construction workers in Britain would not have a pension entitlement. Construction industry employers are choked to find that the Conservatives continue to attack their efforts to introduce an industry notorious for lack of commitment to the stakeholder pension. The industry and its work force are fully supportive of stakeholder pensions.
  Richard Younger-Ross rose—
  Mr. McCartney: Okay, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was here for the full debate.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I note that the Minister frequently says that Conservative policies have no clothes, and I remember what was said about pensions management by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). Does the Minister not concede that, by comparison, the Government have barely a fig leaf?
  Mr. McCartney: I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman's last remark, but if it was anything like the contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), the answer is no.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is in his place; I thank him for supporting the Government's efforts to help poor pensioners. The issues are indeed difficult, and we may well be dealing with them in a rough and ready way. However, the truth is that the Government, in the long term as well as the short term, will provide sustainability and investment in state sector pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) made an excellent contribution on the benefits of the Government's strategy of targeting poor pensioners. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats have come up with an adequate answer tonight; if they really want to tackle pensioner poverty, why do they oppose every measure that we take to tackle pensioner poverty, either by voting against it in the House or rubbishing it outside?
  James Purnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. Is it not typical of Opposition Members that they refuse to say whether they would support any single

  697
  policy? They refused to say whether they supported the MIG or the earnings limit. The one thing that they made clear they would support is annuities reform, which would disproportionately benefit the rich and the better-off.
  Mr. McCartney: The only declared policy of the Conservative party is to support the richest 5 per cent. of pensioners against the other 95 per cent., whom the Government are helping on a regular basis.
  In a wide ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke not only about pensioners' income, but about coalfields regeneration. The Government are putting tens of billions of pounds not only into pensions, but into coalfields regeneration, working with local authorities, the European Community and the public and private sectors to improve housing stock, jobs and the environment, and will continue to do so. It was the Conservatives who abandoned coalfield communities. They tried to destroy those communities and close them down, but they never could and they never will, because of the support that the Government give to coalfield communities.
  As for pension provision, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw spoke about trade union issues. Through the Trades Union Congress, the trade union movement has a stakeholder pension policy. I ask my hon. Friend to encourage trade union members to support that and to sign up to it. He asked what we were doing in respect of pension fund trustees. The next step is to encourage stakeholder activism. A scheme should have independent custodians, and trustees should be familiar with issues involved in reaching investment decisions.
  The hon. Member for Northavon made a curious speech. He called on us to spend, spend, spend on pensioners, yet he will go into the Lobby tonight with the Conservative party, which is committed to cutting public expenditure by £60 billion a year. The hon. Gentleman might have a point about all the issues that he raised, were it not for the fact that he voted against the minimum income guarantee, he will probably vote against the pension credit, he voted against the second state pension, and he voted against new deal and new deal 50-plus.
  We are the first Government in history to do something about the long-term unemployed, especially those over 50 years of age. Members of the Liberal Democrats talk a good story, but they never do anything practical to help the poor, whether the unemployed or the pensioners.
  In a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) dealt with defined benefits and defined contributions. We will shortly issue a consultation document, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and I will have further discussions about some of the matters that he raised. The issues that he raised tonight were legitimate concerns which I am happy to discuss with him.
  To hon. Members who spoke about the Government and the black hole in pension investment, may I say that as well as the take-up of stakeholder pensions, the value of new pension sales rose by 9 per cent. in the last recorded quarter? Regular premiums increased by 50 per cent. in the last reported quarter, and new single premium pension policies rose by 2 per cent. The Government are ensuring investment in the public and private sectors.
  698
  I am not one to bear a grudge against the Opposition for their past failings, but I am thinking of writing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health after the debate, seeking additional funds for the local hospital of the hon. Member for Havant. I am keen to ensure that the hon. Gentleman has his brass neck dealt with before it becomes fatal. After the debate, perhaps the hon. Member for Daventry should take a taxi to St. Thomas' to have his chronic humbug cured.
  The Opposition can go on all they like about our pensions policies, but let us consider that they would certainly have done for pensioners had they remained in power. The poorest pensioners would have been abandoned, because the Tories would not have taken up our challenge and introduced the MIG. They would have done nothing about fuel poverty, and would have withdrawn winter fuel payments. They would not have introduced pension credit, and they would have done nothing for future pensioners, as they try to rubbish stakeholder pensions at every turn. They would have put no extra cash into resolving the problems of SERPS and pensions mis-selling. Indeed, the Conservatives tried to hide the mis-selling of pensions, and nothing would have been done about it if the present Government had not been elected.
  Like the leopard, the Tories cannot change their spots. Perhaps that is another ailment for which they should be seeking medical help. I fear that, if left untreated, the problem might become terminal.
  I call on my colleagues, first, to reject the Tory motion tonight and to vote for today's and tomorrow's pensioners; and secondly, when we go out on the campaign in the country, to let the pensioners know that the Liberal Democrats voted with the Tories for cuts in public expenditure, cuts in employment, cuts in transport, cuts in health care and cuts in social services. That is the true face of the Liberal Democrats. They are just another bunch of right-wing fanatics.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 296.

  Division No. 152]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cameron, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Bacon, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  Baker, Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barker, Gregory

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Baron, John

  Barrett, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clappison, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cran, James

  Brady, Graham

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Burnside, David

  Doughty, Sue

  699

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Osbome, George (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Flook, Adrian

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Pugh, Dr John

  Garnier, Edward

  Rendel, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Goodman, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gray, James

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grayling, Chris

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Selous, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Simmonds, Mark

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heath, David

  Spink, Bob

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hermon, Lady

  Steen, Anthony

  Hoban, Mark

  Streeter, Gary

  Holmes, Paul

  Stunell, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Swire, Hugo

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Key, Robert

  Thurso, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tyler, Paul

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laws, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Webb, Steve

  Letwin, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lidington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Willetts, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Willis, Phil

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maples, John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mercer, Patrick

  Mr. John Randall and

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley N)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainger, Nick

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Allen, Graham

  Baird,Vera

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Banks, Tony

  (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Barron, Kevin

  700

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Efford, Clive

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bell, Stuart

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benn, Hilary

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bennett, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Best, Harold

  Flynn, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Follett, Barbara

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Gardiner, Barry

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gibson, Dr lan

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burgon, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Grogan, John

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caplin, lvor

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Caton, Martin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Havard, Dai

  Challen, Colin

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  lddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  IlIsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  (Copeland)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  David, Wayne

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Kemp, Fraser

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kidney, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lammy, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Laxton, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dowd, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drew, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  701

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lucas, Ian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Luke, Iain

  Ryan, Joan

  Lyons, John

  Salter, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCabe, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, Rt Hon lan

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacDougall, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McFall, John

  Simon, Siôn

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Skinner, Dennis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (lslington S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Southworth, Helen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mann, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marris, Rob

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Miller, Andrew

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mole, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Moran, Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Touhig, Don

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Organ, Diana

  Vaz, Keith

  Owen, Albert

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Perham, Linda

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watts, David

  Pike, Peter

  White, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Pope, Greg

  (Swansea W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Woodward, Shaun

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Worthington, Tony

  Pumell, James

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Ross, Ernie

  Mr. Phil Woolas.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 174

  Division No. 153]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  David, Wayne

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  (Swansea E)

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dawson, Hilton

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Austin, John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Baird, Vera

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Drew, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Edwards, Huw

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Efford, Clive

  Bell, Stuart

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benn, Hilary

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bennett, Andrew

  Farrelly, Paul

  Benton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Berry, Roger

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Flint, Caroline

  Blackman, Liz

  Flynn, Paul

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Follett, Barbara

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burnham, Andy

  Goqqins, Paul

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths Jane(Reading E)

  Cairns, David

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caplin, lvor

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Hanson, David

  Caton, Martin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Challen, Colin

  Havard, Dai

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heyes, David

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Cohen Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  lddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Illsley, Eric

  (Copeland)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  703

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purnell, James

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lammy, David

  Rooney, Terry Ross, Ernie

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ryan, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Uddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  Lucas, Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Luke, Iain

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lyons, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simon, Siôn

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKechin, Ann

  Soley, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Southworth, Helen

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McWalter, Tony

  Stewart David (Inverness E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mann, John

  Stringer, Graham

  Marris, Rob

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Todd, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Touhig, Don

  Mole, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Moran, Margaret

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mudie, George

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mullin, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tynan, Bill

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley Ms Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wareing, Robert N

  Olner, Bill

  Watts, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  White, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Owen, Albert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Perham, Linda

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Woodward, Shaun

  Pollard, Kerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Pond, Chris

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  704

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. Phil Woolas.

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Amess, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Harvey, Nick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bacon, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Baker, Norman

  Heald, Oliver

  Baldry, Tony

  Heath, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Baron, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Barrett, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hoban,Mark

  Bellingham, Henry

  Holmes, Paul

  Bercow, John

  Horam, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brady, Graham

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Breed, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Key, Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burnside, David

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Butterfill, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Lansley, Andrew

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Laws, David

  Cameron, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Conway, Derek

  Maples, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Doughty, Sue

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Fallon, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Right, Howard

  Prisk, Mark

  Flook, Adrian

  Pugh, Dr John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rendel, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, Edward

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gibb, Nick

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Goodman, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gray, James

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grayling, Chris

  Selous, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Greenway, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grieve, Dominic

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

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

  705

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spink, Bob

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spring, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Stanley, RtHon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Streeter, Gary

  Wiggin, Bill

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willetts, David

  Swire, Hugo

  Willis, Phil

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Thurso, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Randall and Mr. Julian Brazier.

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyler, Paul

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's framework for pensions which will reduce pensioner poverty and encourage saving; further welcomes the fact that pension savings are now at record levels and the increased choice given by stakeholder pensions; further welcomes the Government's decision to set up the Pickering review; and congratulates the Government on the extra £6 billion paid to pensioners from April and its intention to bring in the Pension Credit which will increase the incomes of around half of all pensioners.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the draft Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger]
  Question agreed to.

  1901 Census
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: Tonight, I am raising an issue that I can genuinely say is of interest to millions of people in the United Kingdom and across the world. About 30 million people sent a powerful message to the Government when, from 2 January this year, they tried—mostly in vain—to connect to the 1901 census website. Overwhelmed, the website closed on 6 January. I hope that the Minister will reassure me and those millions of people that the Government have heard their message and recognise not only that Ministers should ensure that a relaunched site works but that there is a huge opportunity for the Government on the web if they get this right.
  For hon. Members who are not sure what I am talking about, let me briefly explain. The 1901 census was published on 2 January 2002. The Public Record Office met its statutory requirements to make that information available, and the public can now access the census using microfiche from the Public Record Office at Kew as well as from many local record offices and public libraries up and down the country.
  This year, however, census publication was supposed to be different. As well as using the common microfiche format, the plan was to make the 1901 census available online. That was a fabulous concept. It would have enabled the whole world to search a database of 32 million names from Edwardian England, a transformation for historical research and a dream come true for the fast-growing number of professional and amateur genealogists.
  As a newcomer to addictive family research, I should probably declare an interest. For nearly a year, I have dabbled in the search for my ancestors, and it was with some excitement on 2 January that I typed www.pro.gov.uk into my computer's search engine. Like millions of others, I was sadly disappointed. On behalf of those millions of frustrated people, I feel it right to raise the matter so that the Government may answer questions about the project.
  I shall seek answers on three main points. First, how was the scheme's failure allowed to happen, and what went wrong? Secondly, how is it being put right, and is the Minister satisfied that it will be put right with no repetition of failure? Thirdly, what lessons have been learned? I believe that profound and far-reaching lessons emerge from what happened.
  Before I approach the meat of those questions, I want to record my admiration for the Public Record Office. That may sound surprising given what I have just said, but I do not blame the PRO for the failure. If anyone should carry the can, it should be the contractor—Qinetio—or the Lord Chancellor's Department and the wider private finance initiative programme. I have visited the PRO and seen the rest of its online work, and I know that it is a deeply impressive public service in which committed civil servants are dedicated to high-quality delivery for the public. One need only examine the PRO's annual reports and the extremely high customer satisfaction ratings that it achieves to realise that it is a public service that works. The PRO has done well when

  707
  it has undertaken other information technology projects, such as its amazing online catalogue—PROCAT—or its access to archives initiatives. It has delivered them on time and on budget. The Minister may rest assured that I have no wish to have a go at the PRO. It is a cutting edge example of the public sector at its best.
  My focus falls only on the 1901 census web-based project. The concept of putting the 1901 census online cannot be faulted. It was the right decision. The number of people who tried to visit the site shows that the public thought it the right decision. The problem lay in the execution of the project.
  In 1998, it was clear to the PRO—presumably, therefore, to Ministers—that it could not pay for a project from its existing budget to put the 1901 census online. A decision was taken to opt for the PFI route. That initial decision raises a series of questions. Did the Lord Chancellor's Department ever consider funding the 1901 census as a one-off public sector project, led by the Public Record Office? What alternatives to the PFI were put to Ministers? Which Ministers took the decision? Was the e-envoy consulted?
  One might understand why the PFI was considered suitable in 1998. It was presumably recognised that the website would be popular, and that money was to be made. In 1998, the dotcom bubble had not yet burst. The PRO went to tender in November 1998. I hope that the Minister will confirm that about 30 expressions of interest were received in response to the initial notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities. What I have not been able to discover is how many companies ended up on the shortlist. I understand that many companies withdrew when they realised the sheer enormity of the project—the transcription of 32 million separate 1901 census entries in a relatively short time, and the building of a website database system robust enough to withstand large demand. I am led to believe that the number of companies able to reach the final shortlist was extremely small. Will the Minister give the House that number? If she cannot do so now, will she write to me? The point is germane to the National Audit Office's future consideration of the project.
  I have a sneaking suspicion that only one firm was on the shortlist:DERA—the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—since transformed into the commercial, publicly owned company, QinetiQ. However, when the contract was awarded in October 1999, DERA was still an agency of the Ministry of Defence. My guess is that DERA was the default public sector option, as the private sector eventually declined to bid properly.
  DERA still had to bid for a quasi-commercial contract to meet the tender standards and the so-called rigours of the Government's PFI. The Lord Chancellor's Department had to be seen to be participating in the PH movement. DERA as QinetiQ is now truly commercial and may also soon be privatised. It may be bought by the US company Carlyle, whose chairman is former Prime Minister John Major according to The Sunday Telegraph and The Guardian. However, QinetiQ will never do more than the contract demands. It has no wider sense of the public good and no wider duty to the public good, although the census is public information and is thus almost by definition what economists mean by a public good.
  708
  What are the terms of QinetiQ's contract? Well, of course, we cannot be told—they are commercially sensitive. That was the frequent refrain in ministerial replies to my questions and those of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who is in his place this evening. We asked for details of the penalty clauses affecting QinetiQ—commercially sensitive. We asked for the final tender price—commercially sensitive. We asked for the contracts to be placed in the Library—commercially sensitive.
  Will the Minister tell us whether we will ever learn the details of that contract? Will they ever become public and, if so, how long after the contract began? Will the 30-year rule—or perhaps even the 100-year rule—apply? Is commercial sensitivity always to be used as an excuse to prevent MPs from searching for the truth on behalf of the public good? Some of us think that commercial sensitivity is sometimes a pseudonym for "politically sensitive".
  We know a few things, however. Since 1998, the taxpayer has spent £1.2million on the 1901 census online project, but the bulk of the funding came from QinetiQ. It used independent finance, although no one would tell me how much. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
  We are told that QinetiQ is allowed by the contract to "cover their costs" and make "a reasonable return". We do not know how much the return might be. That is politically—sorry, commercially—sensitive. However, page four of the annual report of the Keeper of the Public Records notes that, after the contractor has made a reasonable return:
  "Any additional revenue will be invested in digitising further census."
  Will the Minister tell the House whether the digitisation of further census is dependent on what is left over after QinetiQ has made a reasonable return? If so, on current form, it might never happen, because we learn from the Minister's answers that the cost of the additional work needed to relaunch the site will be met by QinetiQ. At one level, that is reassuring, but there are two concerns.
  If QinetiQ has to invest more to put the problem right, will it take the company even longer to make a "reasonable return"? Will it thus take even longer before QinetiQ can fund the digitisation of another census, such as that for 1891? One would need to see the detail of the contract to answer that question—but that is of course commercially sensitive.
  Mr. David Lidington: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the question of access to the accounts of publicly owned companies by the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Public Accounts Committee was explored in some detail by the Sharman review set up by the Government? We have been waiting for more than a year for the Government's reply to that review. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the census project would offer a good test case of the Government's readiness to allow the access by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC that Lord Sharman recommended?
  Mr. Davey:The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Lord Sharman carried out an important public audit review and I hope that the Government will meet its recommendations. The project would indeed make a good test case.

  709
  I want to return to the amount of investment. If the investment needed to put the website back online with a guarantee of good service was very large, QinetiQ may have been willing to make that investment, but no one may have been able to force it do so under the contract. That is a real concern, which takes me back to the inherent problem that lies behind this tragic episode—guessing the public demand for that new public service. As the apology on the PRO's website makes clear, the website was designed for 1.2 million visitors a day. On the launch, however, it received 1.2 million visitors an hour.
  So we need to know how the projected demand figures were arrived at, what extra capacity will be built in for relaunch and what are the site's estimated settled or long-run capacity needs. Those were, and are, genuinely difficult questions, mostly because there has been no comparable site before. I am told that the PRO and QinetiQ looked at other sites, such as the American site on the passenger lists of ships arriving from Europe—the Ellis island site—and at the Mormon genealogical sites and that they used the figures from those sites, and added some, but that still was not enough.
  Should they have built more capacity? We are also told that many genealogists were worried that site capacity was not sufficient and that they told the PRO that in October 2001. Yet the PRO is locked into a Government-required PFI contract, so it has little room for manoeuvre. If QinetiQ is not prepared to pay for the extra investment, it will not happen; it did not before the launch, and, worryingly, the extra investment may well not be there for the relaunch. Is the Minister aware that no new extra capacity is planned for the relaunch? Does she think that wise?
  We have read about the increased bandwidth, the firewalls, the divert sites. I have heard that cookies might be developed to knock people off the site if they stay on for too long, blocking others. But what about extra capacity? The aim seems to be to make the site more robust for the 1.2 million estimated visitors to ensure that they have a good experience when they finally get on, but that may well mean long waits and long queues because there is no intention to increase the capacity.
  Does not the Minister realise that the site's capacity will not increase unless and until she and the Department intervene to make that happen? The PRO simply does not have that power over its contractor. I urge the Minister to think long and hard about that. The House will hold her and her colleagues to account if the relaunch does not work. People want to know when the site will be up and working. Can she give the House and the millions of people interested in the site in the United Kingdom and around the world the categoric assurance that the site will work when it is eventually relaunched? When does she expect it to be relaunched?
  In the short time that remains to me, I want to explain to the Minister why I think the project and its success deserve her attention, and, with due respect to her, the attention of Ministers at the very highest levels. The project deserves significant political attention because the site was so popular. When so many millions of people overwhelmingly show that they want information on their own kith and kin that the Government hold, surely the Government should sit up and take notice.
  710
  More people visited the site than watched "Big Brother", than voted on "Pop Idol" or than voted in the last election. The focus groups may not have told those at No. 10 that, but the Minister should do so. Here is a chance to put family values back into the internet, rather than the smut and pornography that has dominated it. Pornography may speak to a human desire, but the desire to contact our family—to reach out to our past and our own genes—is also a powerful human desire, and the Government can back that desire by backing the 1901 census website. Just as the website "Friends Reunited" has been so successful, appealing to the human desire to find long-lost friends, so the census appeals to another positive human instinct.
  Let me put this huge opportunity another way. Rupert Murdoch realised that he needed sport to sell satellite television. He paid huge sums to win exclusive rights to screen test cricket and football, and it worked. With the public sector's monopoly over the census data, the Government could use the census website to build e-government. Let us compare the experience with that site to the hundreds of other Government websites. Yes, people find those websites useful, in their tens, in their hundreds and in their thousands, but which Government website has had millions of visitors in an hour? If we harness that public excitement and the curiosity that people have about their own families, we might transform the prospects and popularity of e-government. People who would otherwise never think of surfing the net might just try it out.
  For example, I have tried several times to explain the internet to my grandmother, but she smiles at me and says, "Yes, dear. But it's so boring." However, when I talk to her about her parents, grandparents and our shared family history, she comes alive. I am not suggesting that I will ever get her surfing the net, but the 1901 census would certainly make it interesting for her. Therefore, for relatively tiny amounts of cash—especially in the context of the hundreds of other e-projects around Whitehall—the Government might just attract the interest of millions more to the web and eventually even to other e-government sites.
  The 1901 census site has the proven potential to move online government on to a new, higher level—and cheaply—but only if the Government move fast and back the Public Record Office before the site's relaunch.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton):I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing this debate on the 1901 census website. The site has certainly generated considerable interest over the past few weeks and I now realise the personal interest that he takes in the subject, about which he spoke passionately.
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to praise the staff of the Public Record Office. They certainly deserve our praise, and I too would like to praise them for putting together this project and for doing so in the way that they did. The project is a cornerstone of the PRO's strategy to use information technology to make the historical records in our national archive more accessible to the public.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the Keeper of the Public Records has a statutory duty to make all census returns available after 100 years. That is her statutory duty, and

  711
  in the past it was done solely by providing a service on microfilm. However, in planning for the release of the 1901 census, the PRO thought beyond that and wanted to come up with a new and exciting initiative. It wanted to provide an additional online service as it recognised that this was a time of rapidly expanding internet access. It also recognised that that presented a tremendous challenge and an opportunity. Making the census available in that way offers users, for the first time, the prospect of accessing information and images about the more than 32 million people who lived in England and Wales in 1901.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I shall try to answer as many as I can but if I do not answer them all, I hope that he will feel free to write to me. I shall certainly respond as best I can, bearing in mind that issues of commercial confidentiality are involved. Some of the questions that he raised are covered by that.
  Let us start from the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which was about how the project was funded in the first instance. It was clear that the creation of 1.5 million digital record images and complex IT systems could not be funded out of the PRO's resources. Its annual budget is about £25 million, and there is no doubt that the project would have required upfront several million pounds of additional funding. He mentioned many of the PRO's other commitments and, because of them, it was clear that partnership funding would be required if we were to get this exciting project off the ground. The PRO therefore rightly sought to establish a public-private partnership, the procedures for which it followed to the letter at all times.
  I note the hon. Gentleman's views on the decision to use the process, but I think that the right decision was made. It is a good example of how the public and private sectors can work together to bring service benefits to the citizen at a lower cost to the public purse and at a reasonable cost to the customer, whether accessing the website from the United Kingdom or overseas, because many people outside the country were expected to use it.
  The PRO began the process in November 1998. About 30 organisations expressed interest in the contract, and a full tender exercise was undertaken. Four organisations were shortlisted to produce a full submission. One could not commit to making the 1901 census available online by January 2002 and another withdrew, which left two organisations to provide full submissions. That gives an idea of the scale of the project and the possible risk involved.
  The contract was based on the standard Office of Government Commerce model for information technology projects. The contracts are outcome-based, and the commercial and development risks are transferred to the contractor. The PRO established a dedicated team to work closely with the contractor through a joint programme board to ensure that the deadlines were met. That included the successful delivery of a pilot project, which I saw, using the 1891 online returns for the county of Norfolk.
  In addition, the PRO spent £1.2 million on essential work related to the 1901 census, such as quality assurance. I emphasise that it has not made over any public funds to QinetiQ. The development costs for the online service have been met entirely by QinetiQ using its own sources of finance; it has not received payments,
  712
  management charges or other fees from the PRO. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, QinetiQ recoups its investment costs through revenue on the charged services from the census website. Once the company has recouped its investment costs, it will pay a proportion of its income back to the PRO for investment in further online services, notably other censuses. In that sense, it is fulfilling the requirement, which the hon. Gentleman set out, that we should consider putting other censuses online. On the extra money that has been invested to improve the site, it is difficult to give the exact timing for the recouping of the money and so on, but we hope that we will put the 1891 and the 1881 censuses online in about a year.
  An advisory panel comprising amateur and professional family historians as well as staff from QinetiQ was set up in January 2000. It met 11 times to give users a full say in the development of the online service. On estimated demand for the service, it is true that members of the advisory panel highlighted the problems that family history websites in the United States experienced at initial launch when attempted use was much heavier than anticipated. At the same time, the panel carefully considered the example of other US websites. It is always difficult to make precise comparisons because some sites provide different information to different audiences. However, the important lesson that was drawn from the US experience—this is at the very heart of many of the hon. Gentleman's questions—is that, after the initial surge in interest, demand for the service markedly declined.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it would not have made business sense, or any sense, to construct a service that was capable of meeting all demand experienced daily between 2 and 6 January because, in the long run, all the evidence is that demand falls off. That would therefore have been a waste of resources and unnecessary expense.
  There were initial problems with the launch, but they largely arose because the service's popularity outstripped even the generous estimates of likely use. Up to 1.2 million users per day were planned for, which is a massive site by general internet standards. By way of example in the United States, the Genealogical Society of Utah's website, which is probably the biggest such site and, incidentally, had the same kind of problems to start with and crashed at its launch, now has 89,000 users a day.
  We know that nearly 30 million users a day attempted to access the 1901 census between 2 and 6 January. We are working to put right some of the problems that have arisen. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department are working with officials from the Public Record Office and staff of the company to ensure that the website is up and ready as soon as possible.
  I am aware of the time, so I hope that I have covered a number of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I know that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has shown an interest in the work of the Public Record Office recently, and I know that he visited it last week. His hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has also shown a keen interest in and been very supportive of this ambitious and innovative project.
  Of course I understand the frustration of those people—including the hon. Gentleman, now that I know of his intense personal interest—who were looking forward to

  713
  finding out about their families and roots on the census site, but I firmly believe that it was right for the PRO to undertake the project. It will provide millions of people with the opportunity to access public records and provide a revenue stream to fund other online services. We would never have been able to do that without a partnership between the public and the private sectors.
  714
  I am very aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and assure him that we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure that the census site becomes the success that it deserves to be and provides enjoyment and interest for the many millions of people who wish to use it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Women's Unit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for Women what budgetary provision has been made for the cost of the Women's Unit in the first financial year of its existence. [33057]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Women's Unit was created in 1998. Its budget for the first financial year of its existence (1998–99) was £1,111,897. The unit was renamed the Women and Equality Unit following last year's general election in order to recognise its new policy responsibilities across the United Kingdom for gender equality, co-ordination of sexual orientation policy and its sponsorship of the Equal Opportunities commission.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on how the responsibilities of the Women's Unit differ from the responsibilities of the departmental Ministers for Women. [33122]

  Ms Hewitt
  In my role as Minister for Women and supported by the Women and Equality Unit, I work closely with Cabinet colleagues, other Government Departments and Number 10 in order to ensure that the Government can bring about practical improvements to women's lives that benefit society as a whole. There are no Ministers for Women assigned to individual Government Departments.

  Carers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions to secure improved arrangements for carers. [30870]

  Ms Hewitt
  In autumn 2000 the Government announced a package of measures to enhance the current social security provision for carers, worth more than £500 million over a three year period. Two of the measures were implemented in April last year. The invalid care allowance (ICA) earnings limit was increased from £50 to £72 per week and the carer premium paid through the income related benefits was increased from £14.15 to £24.40.

  On 17 December 2001, the Department for Work and Pensions laid a draft regulatory reform order before Parliament. If accepted, this will give those aged over 65 the right to claim invalid care allowance for the first time; will provide for the extension of entitlement to ICA for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for; and will change the name of the benefit to carer's allowance.

  I have no plans to make any representations for further change.
  640W

  Devolved Responsibilities
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for Women which matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament her office has involvement in. [33119]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Women and Equality Unit supports the Ministers for Women in helping to deliver the Government's key priorities. Its aim is to bring about measurable improvements in the position of women which benefit society across the United Kingdom. It works on specific issues on a project basis alongside Number 10 and central Government Departments. Current priorities include helping women to balance their lives at home and work, closing the pay gap, developing policies which help women who want to return to work and the delivery of high quality health and education public services for women. It also has responsibility across the UK for policy and legislation on gender equality and sexual orientation and sponsors the Equal Opportunities Commission as well as ensuring the United Kingdom fulfils its international obligations and raises the profile of women's issues in the EU.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) her agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30079]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry and its agencies have not had any empty freehold properties in any of the last four years. However, the estimated annual costs and total value of empty freehold properties owned by DTI non-departmental public bodies and public corporations for the same period are shown in the tables:

  Status/year

  Empty freehold properties

  Running costs (£)

  Estimated market value (£)

  NDPBs1

  1998

  59

  54,461.78

  2,583,366.00

  1999

  29

  25,106.50

  1,290,675.00

  2000

  24

  50,874.52

  2,338,000.00

  2001

  20

  45,655.83

  1,210,000.00

  Other public bodies

  Consignia plc2

  —

  —

  —

  BNFL plc

  1998

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  2

  35,000.00

  1,100,000.00

  2000

  3

  55,000.00

  2,100,000.00

  2001

  3

  55,000.00

  2,100,000.00

  1 Regional development agencies (RDAs) are included under NDPBs. RDAs own significant property estates as part of its role as a regeneration agency. The land will be released and sold over a period of many years. RDAs do not own any other non-operational land and buildings.

  2 Consignia do not maintain central records of the number and costs of empty properties for the last four years. To provide the information requested would be at disproportionate cost. However, as of September 2000 there was a total estate of 2,775 properties of which 3.38 per cent. was vacant by number, and 1.5 per cent. vacant by value. In December 2001 there was a total estate of 2,741 of which 2.44 per cent. was vacant by number, and 1.62 per cent. vacant by value.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30092]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals for the years requested was as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  518,700

  1998–99

  647,233

  1999–2000

  581,044

  2000–01

  626,862

  This includes expenditure on national daily and Sunday newspapers, regional newspapers, mass circulation magazines and journals, and academic periodicals. It also

  Date

  Event

  Town

  Number of firms

  Support (£)

  September 1997

  ASIS

  St. Louis

  7

  21,310

  September 1997

  IDEF

  Ankara

  8

  67,850

  September 1997

  Sitech Berlin

  Berlin

  8

  16,110

  November 1997

  A+A

  Düsseldorf

  17

  33,078

  March 1998

  Securex South Africa

  Johannesburg

  12

  23,973

  April 1998

  MIPS

  Moscow

  14

  48,049

  April 1998

  DSA

  Kuala Lumpur

  34

  214,682

  May 1998

  CBW Protection

  Stockholm

  14

  33,862

  June 1998

  Eurosatory

  Paris

  20

  92,246

  October 1998

  Security Essen

  Essen

  38

  46,926

  November 1998

  Fire Asia

  Hong Kong

  30

  98,728

  February 1999

  Shot Show

  Atlanta

  16

  38,325

  March 1999

  Securex South Africa

  Johannesburg

  10

  17,627

  March 1999

  ISC Expo/Las Vegas

  Las Vegas

  8

  31,650

  March 1999

  IDEX UAE

  Abu Dhabi

  35

  240,792

  March 1999

  Securex Poland

  Poznan

  12

  1,000

  April 1999

  LAD—Latin America Defentech

  Rio de Janeiro

  24

  73,442

  October 1999

  Security Asia

  Singapore

  16

  57,679

  October 1999

  Sitech Berlin

  Berlin

  8

  14,574

  November 1999

  Exposec

  São Paulo

  7

  30,648

  November 1999

  Milipol—France

  Paris

  15

  31,935

  January 2000

  Intersec

  Dubai

  28

  53,914

  February 2000

  Securex Poland

  Poznan

  10

  25,651

  March 2000

  ISC Expo/Las Vegas

  Las Vegas

  7

  18,400

  June 2000

  Securitex—Hong Kong

  Hong Kong

  12

  39,084

  June 2000

  Eurosatory

  Paris

  25

  45,189

  June 2000

  Interschutz

  Augsburg

  36

  75,798

  July 2000

  Copex—Asia

  Singapore

  10

  21,578

  July 2000

  ASE

  Miami

  7

  17,294

  October 2000

  Security Essen

  Essen

  37

  64,052

  October 2000

  Euronaval

  Paris

  26

  54,870

  November 2000

  Expoprotection

  Paris

  32

  52,347

  November 2000

  Exposec

  São Paulo

  7

  30,167

  January 2001

  Intersec

  Dubai

  25

  62,100

  February 2001

  Securex South Africa

  Johannesburg

  9

  32,486

  March 2001

  IWA

  Nuremberg

  18

  23,208

  April 2001

  MIPS

  Moscow

  6

  17,751

  April 2001

  LAD—Latin America Defentech

  Rio de Janeiro

  18

  61,466

  May 2001

  Imdex Asia

  Singapore

  38

  78,896

  June 2001

  CBW Protection

  Stockholm

  14

  36,684

  July 2001

  ASE

  Miami

  10

  27,087

  November 2001

  Exposec

  São Paulo

  9

  37,300

  November 2001

  Milipol—France

  Paris

  16

  39,541

  November 2001

  Security Asia

  Singapore

  12

  32,200

  January 2002

  Intersec

  Dubai

  25

  62,100

  The Provision of the Data Protection Act preclude the release of information about individual firms.
  642W
  includes expenditure on annual publications, in particular reference works that would not normally be considered as periodicals. It is not possible to exclude such annual publications from the figures, except at disproportionate cost.

  MSP Exhibitions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support has been provided by Trade Partners UK, or its predecessors, to assist military, security and police companies(a) to attend and (b) to exhibit at MSP exhibitions since 1 May 1997; and if she will list the (i) companies, (ii) exhibitions attended and (iii) sums of money involved. [32273]

  Ms Hewitt
  TPUK provided support to UK companies to attend and exhibit at police, fire and security exhibitions under the terms of the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad scheme (and its predecessor Trade Fair Support Scheme) at the following exhibitions during this period:

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding her Department's work to encourage inward investment to the UK. [30163]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Government Ministers take every opportunity to promote the UK as the place to do business.

  Invest UK, as part of its overall promotional effort to attract inward investment to the UK, is in continuous dialogue, with the involvement of Ministers, with both prospective and existing investors to help them in all aspects of locating and doing business here. My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment holds regular breakfast meetings with existing inward investors to discuss specific concerns that they may have.

  Ministers are also regularly involved in inward investment events overseas. During a recent visit to Japan, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry hosted a dinner for investors and also met members of the automotive manufacturers and components suppliers in support of their efforts in retaining and making further investment in the UK. In January this year on a two-day visit to Toronto, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment called on existing major investors and multipliers and held media interviews to promote inward investment. On a visit this month, I shall be hosting an inward investment dinner during my attendance at the largest ICT (information and communications technologies) conference taking place in India this year.

  These actions have contributed to the UK retaining its position as the top destination for inward investment in Europe as confirmed by the recently published UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) figures on foreign investment flows.

  Employment Tribunals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people from the Warrington, North constituency were members of employment tribunals or the Employment Appeals Tribunal(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [32255]

  Alan Johnson
  The number of people from the Warrington, North constituency who are currently members of the Employment Tribunals is as follows:

  Chairmen (appointed by the Lord Chancellor)—None

  Lay members (appointed by the Secretary of State—None.

  In 1997, no Employment Tribunal Chairmen resided in the Warrington, North constituency. Historic data for 1997 concerning lay members are not available without incurring disproportionate cost. However, using information available on serving members who were due for re-appointment in 1998, one lay member is recorded as residing in the Warrington, North constituency at that time.

  The number of people from the Warrington, North constituency who are currently members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal is as follows:

  Judges (nominated by the Lord Chancellor)—None

  Lay members (appointed by Her Majesty on joint recommendation of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State)—One.

  644W
  In 1997, the corresponding figures for the Employment Appeal Tribunal were:

  Judges (nominated by the Lord Chancellor)—None

  Lay members (appointed by Her Majesty on joint recommendation of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State)—One.

  Humber Pilots Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason two officials from her Department visited the offices of Humber Pilots Ltd. on 18 January. [31525]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Two officials from my Department's Radiocommunications Agency visited the office of Humber Pilots Ltd. on 18 January 2002 in connection with radio usage under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

  Clothing/Textile Industries
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is her Department's policy(a) to adhere to the timetable agreed at the Uruguay Round for the phasing out of MFA restrictions and (b) not to accelerate the liberalisation process. [33274]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are fully committed to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) to phase out Multi Fibre Arrangement (MFA) import restrictions. We also fully support Commissioner Lamy's bilateral market access initiative offering liberalisation of textile and clothing trade with the EU over and above that required in the ATC in return for improved access to the textile and clothing markets of supplier countries.

  Employee Pension Entitlements
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims were made by those seeking part-time employee pension entitlements following a ruling in May 2000 by the European Court of Justice; how many have been settled; and when she expects all outstanding cases to be dealt with. [32292]

  Alan Johnson
  The Employment Tribunals Service database (RITAS) does not identify these particular claims from any other claims brought under equal pay or sex discrimination legislation. It is therefore not possible to give exact figures for claims brought following the ECJ ruling in May 2000 or which claims brought since then have settled.

  However, manual records indicate that since May 2000 approximately 19,000 claims have been made to an employment tribunal following the ECJ ruling. In the same period approximately 11,000 claims were disposed of prior to a hearing including those settled leaving over 51,000 outstanding claims.

  The majority of claims are against public sector employers and are stayed awaiting the result of test cases which are scheduled to be heard between 24 June and 19 July 2002. The findings of these test cases will be applicable to those stayed cases.

  ECGD
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the net cash outflow was from the Export Credits Guarantee Department attributable to
  645W
  defence exports in the financial years (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 broken down by (i) cost of interest rate support, (ii) claims paid, (iii) interest paid and (iv) operating expenses proportionate to defence related business. [27214]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table details claims paid and premium earned for the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 to date in respect of defence related business. The cost of interest rate support has been estimated on the proportion of ECGD credit business constituted by defence related business. As for the further information my hon. Friend requests on operating expenses, I am afraid ECGD does not hold its records on a basis which would enable it to provide the level of details he has requested. It would involve disproportionate costs to produce it.

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Premium earned

  38

  3

  Claims paid

  181

  86

  Estimate of interest rate support

  4

  7

  1 Provisional figures, which may change considerably throughout the rest of the year.

  The claims figures relate mostly to business with Indonesia that has been rescheduled and which ECGD expects to recover in the fullness of time. These claims are in respect of business supported before the years indicated.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of Export Credits Guarantee Department coverage for arms sales was in the financial years,(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99,(d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02.

  Ms Hewitt
  According to ECGD's published annual reports the level of ECGD support for defence business in each of the years was as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  763

  1998–99

  1,700

  1999–2000

  1,583

  2000–01

  2,735

  The level of ECGD support for defence business in 2001–02 amounts to £31 million up to 31 December 2001.

  Oil Fabrication Industry
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the prospects for the downstream fabrication industry over the next five years. [32249]

  Mr. Wilson
  As my hon. Friend is aware, overall demand for fabrication for the UKCS is unlikely to return to the levels seen in previous years.

  Sophisticated field development techniques using floating and subsea technologies have largely replaced heavy fixed platforms. UK Industry has acknowledged this and is presently reconfiguring itself to tackle the new market conditions.
  646W
  The Department is actively engaged in assisting companies, large and small, to increase their competitiveness by adopting best practice from around the world and particularly from the Gulf of Mexico.

  I am confident that the industry will respond well to these challenges.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met(a) UKOOA and (b) LASCOF to discuss the future for oil fabrication. [32250]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The future of the oil fabrication industry is a regular agenda item at the quarterly meetings of the cross industry forum PILOT which I chair. UKOOA member companies are fully engaged with this process.

  (b) On 14 December I had a very constructive meeting with LASCOF in Glasgow.

  BP Clair Field
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what economic assessment she has made of a bid by a British company for a platform for BP's Clair field in terms of employment and economic activity. [32251]

  Mr. Wilson
  Industrial benefits from BP's £650 million investment in Clair include approximately 1,000 direct jobs—850 of these during the construction phase and the balance offshore.

  There will also be a considerable knock-on effect inducing activity and employment further down the supply chain.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the timescale involved for the granting of the contract to build the platform for the BP Clair field. [32252]

  Mr. Wilson
  While the timing of contract awards is a commercial matter for BP, we understand that the analysis of tenders for the major structural elements of Clair will be carried out during February and March.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote British oil fabrication yards in their bid for downstream work from the BP Clair field. [32257]

  Mr. Wilson
  As my hon. Friend is aware, I regularly meet BP's senior management. On several occasions I have emphasised the importance of Clair to the UK's oil and gas industry, and that UK fabrication yards are anxious to demonstrate their global competitiveness.

  I also met representatives of Clair prequalified fabricators in November in Aberdeen to encourage them to deliver the competitive bids I know they are capable of.

  Consignia
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the National Audit Office report on Consignia. [32245]
  647W
  Ms Hewitt
  On 24 February the NAO published a report to Parliament entitled "Opening the Post: PostComm and postal services—the risks and opportunities". The Government will consider the detail of that report carefully and will comment where appropriate.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has commissioned on the effects of(a) rural post-offices, (b) post-buses and (c) directly employed Consignia staff on economic activity by constituency in each year since 1999. [32247]

  Ms Hewitt
  No such research has been commissioned. Advice received at the end of last year from the Postal Services Commission on transitional assistance to the rural post office network is under consideration. In addition, the Government have made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those business overseas which have been acquired by Consignia over the last five years, together with the price paid. [30625]

  Ms Hewitt
  Consignia plc has advised that it has acquired overseas companies as listed in the table.

  Consignia plc: overseas acquisitions

  Company

  Consignia shareholding (%)

  Total investment £ million

  CityMail Group

  11.2

  5

  Citipost

  100

  28

  Crie Group

  100

  15

  Der Kurier

  100

  9

  Extand SA

  100

  97

  German Parcel

  100

  308

  GP Austria

  100

  14

  NPD

  100

  72

  Pakke-Trans

  100

  20

  Williames

  100

  10

  CityMail Sweden

  67

  23

  Domberger Paket Dienst

  100

  45

  DGE S.p.A 49 per cent./Agone

  49/100

  29

  Date of announcement

  Financial commitment in £million

  Programmes

  November 2001

  £4.68 over six years

  ARTES 1 (satellite telecommunications)

  #x00A3;49.85 over six years

  ARTES 3 (satellite telecommunications)

  £35 over five years

  ARTES 4 (satellite telecommunications)

  £12.6 over two years

  InfoTerra/TerraSar (operational earth observation)

  £7.23 over five years

  Global Monitoring for Environment and Security

  £147.1 over 10 years

  Living Planet programme (Earth Observation Envelope Programme)

  £130 over four years

  Astronomy and planetary science including new space exploration programme Aurora

  £1.4 over 3 years

  Ariane Infrastructure

  £71 over five years

  European Space Agency general budget

  October 2001

  £1

  National programme—Earth Observation instrumentation development

  December 1999

  £1.4 over three years

  EMIR-2X (microgravity and life sciences)

  August 1999

  £10.5 over three years

  ARTES (satellite telecommunications)

  £5

  Beagle 2 (UK project to be launched on a European Space Agency mission)

  May 1999

  £128 over four years

  Astronomy and planetary science programme

  £56 over four years

  European Space Agency general budget

  £8

  Galileo definition stage

  £4.5 over five years

  ARTES 1 and 4 (satellite telecommunications)

  £67 million over 3 years

  Living Planet programme (Earth Observation Envelope Programme)

  September 1998

  £5

  Satellite navigation

  £4

  Living Planet programme (Earth Observation Envelope Programme)

  £1.65

  ENVISAT data processing/archiving

  648W

  Consignia plc: overseas acquisitions

  Company

  Consignia shareholding (%)

  Total investment £ million

  DGE S.p.A 51 percent.

  51

  10

  Szybka Pazcka

  25

  7

  GP Slovenia

  100

  1

  GP Czechoslovakia

  100

  1

  Stafetten

  100

  2

  G3WW

  24.5

  35

  M Express

  100

  1

  FDS

  100

  5

  CFI Ltd.

  100

  8

  Note:

  The numbers quoted above are total investment. As such they are based on acquisition price/transaction costs/debt assumed/capex and taxations i.e. they reflect the total planned investment in the projects by Consignia.

  Enron
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the ultimate parent company of Wainstones Plc is Enron. [30708]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the last accounts filed with Companies House by Wainstones Power Ltd., the ultimate parent company is given as Xcel Energy, formerly known as Northern States Power Company and incorporated in the USA.

  Space Research
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (I) what measures have been introduced since 1997 to assist the British National Space Centre and the European Space Programme; [32526]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the British National Space Centre and its latest projects [32524]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation, announced on 15 November 2001 that the United Kingdom had subscribed £380 million over the next 10 years to the space-related research programmes of the European Space Agency. Details of this and other major announcements since 1997 by the British National Space Centre in relation to the European Space Agency are listed in the table.
  649W

  Date of announcement

  Financial commitment in £million

  Programmes

  April 1998

  £2

  General Support Technology Programme

  £2

  ARTES 4 (satellite telecommunications)

  £0.5

  SMART 1 (technology research)

  March 1998

  £6.7 over three years

  ARTES 3 (satellite telecommunications)

  £8.1 over two years

  ERS 2 operations (earth observation)

  £6.4 over five years

  Earth Observation preparatory programme

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent meetings she has had with European colleagues on space research and exploration. [32525]

  Ms Hewitt
  In recent months I have not attended any meetings with European colleagues at which space research and exploration was specifically discussed. However, my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation attended the Ministerial Council of the European Space Agency on 14–15 November 2001, which the United Kingdom hosted in Edinburgh. At this meeting it was agreed the UK would subscribe to the study phase of a potential European programme for exploration of the solar system, the Aurora programme. The Minister also attended the October Research Council which discussed the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security initiative, and the December Research Council where some conclusions on space policy were adopted. More recently he attended a bilateral with the Spanish Science Minister at which the subject of the European global satellite navigation system (Galileo) was raised.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the independent cross-community and lay element incorporated into the complaints mechanism available for juveniles in the criminal justice system is; what representations he has received concerning the compliance of this mechanism with the UN Rules on the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty; what the terms of reference are of his review of the complaints mechanisms and induction material; and if he will place the relevant documents in the Library. [29951]

  Mr. Browne
  Existing mechanisms for dealing with complaints within Juvenile Justice Centres are operated by an independent Juvenile Justice Board, as required by the Secretary of State. These arrangements, which are fully explained to all young people entering custody, include child protection protocols, planned and unannounced inspections by the Social Services Inspectorate and an Independent Representation Scheme provided by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO).

  The existing arrangements are broadly in accordance with the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, and as such no representations have been received by the Secretary of State in relation to their compliance. However, in line with the recommendations made in the Criminal Justice Review, they are being reviewed by a development team,
  650W
  established by the Juvenile Justice Board, as part of a much wider brief to develop new operating policies and procedures in preparation for the closure of Lisnevin and the move to a single centre on the existing Rathgael site.

  The development team's remit is currently in draft form and will be placed in the Library when it is finalised.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been received by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year since its creation; what the proportion of outcomes were; and what the average time taken for each stage in the processing of an application was compared to the equivalent times for cases in England and Wales. [29952]

  Mr. Browne
  The following table indicates the number of applications received each year since the Commission commenced operations.

  Year

  All applications

  Northern Ireland applications

  1997–98

  1,382

  28

  1998–99

  1,037

  8

  1999–2000

  777

  14

  2000–01

  799

  9

  2001–021

  610

  5

  Totals

  4,605

  64

  1 To 31 December 2001

  The status of the Northern Ireland cases at 1 January 2002 is: eight cases have been referred back to the courts, the Commission has decided not to refer 39 cases back to the courts, 11 cases are currently under review and six cases await review.

  Information is not readily available on the average time taken by the Commission at each stage of it processes. However, the Commission handles all cases, regardless of their origin, according to the same set of procedures and priorities.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Criminal Justice Board established a Public Information and Education Sub-Group; who comprises this group; what its terms of reference are; on what dates the sub-group has met; and what its work programme is for 2002–03. [33784]

  Mr. Browne
  The Public Information Working Group, comprising representatives from the six statutory criminal justice organisations, was established on 6 June 2001.

  Since then the group has met on 6 September, 24 October and 27 November. A work programme for 2002–03 is under development.

  I have arranged for a copy of the terms of reference for the Working Group to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional security measures are planned by his Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31790]

  Dr. John Reid
  Policies and physical security measures relating to theft and fraud are considered adequate at present. However, they are kept under review and updated as and when the need arises.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32018]

  Dr. John Reid
  The proportion of the departmental expenditure limit (excluding NDPBs) in 2001–02 accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions is as follows:

  Total departmental expenditure limit—£1,056,836,000

  Total salary and pension costs—£113,533,000

  Proportion—10.74 per cent. (approx.)

  This is an estimate, as exact figures will not be known until the end of this financial year.

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31747]

  Dr. John Reid
  The average annual leave entitlement of staff in my department in each of the last four years was 26 days.

  Victims of Terrorism
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been made available to support the victims of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland since 10 April 1998. [30415]

  Mr. Browne
  In response to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report, "We Will Remember Them", this Government have thus far allocated £18.25 million specifically to help address the needs of Victims of the Troubles. (See breakdown under heading 'funding for victims').

  Criminal injuries and damage compensation

  In addition, we anticipate that this year alone the bills for criminal injuries and damage compensation to victims of crime in Northern Ireland will be £55 million and £9 million respectively. More than £1.5 billion has been spent in compensation for criminal injuries and damage since 1968–69 (not possible to break these figures down into troubles-related and other crime).

  Devolved Administration's contribution

  The devolved Administration are also committed to addressing the needs of victims and have so far provided £1.6 million as part of a larger package of EU funding of £6.67 million to victims. They are also currently working
  652W
  to put in place a cross-departmental strategy for ensuring that the needs of victims are met through effective, high quality help and services.

  Support initiatives for the security forces

  Government have made available more than £1 million to the George Cross Foundation to mark the sacrifices and honour the achievements of the RUC. (The George Cross Foundation has taken on responsibility for the establishment of a Garden of Remembrance and a new RUC museum).

  Government have established a police fund which aims to bring additional assistance to police officers and their families directly affected as a result of terrorism. From this fund £4.2 million was paid in a tax free, lump sum payment to police widows, widowed prior to November 1982, as a direct result of terrorism.

  The Government have funded the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT) to a total of £8.1 million (£4.5 million allocated for three year period in March 1999 and £3.6 million allocated for a further two years, 2002–04). The PRRT was conceived to provide assistance aimed at the rehabilitation of ex-officers who were injured on duty and retraining for those leaving or expected to leave the force.

  Funding for victims

  Since publication of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report "We Will Remember Them" in 1998, over £18.25 million has been made available for victims' initiatives. Funding has so far included:
  £700,000 for a Family Trauma Centre which provides therapeutic service addressing the psychological needs of families and young people.
  £300,000 for an Educational Bursary Pilot Scheme-for individuals whose education was directly affected by the Troubles, 350 people received awards.
  £3 million to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund with a commitment of a further £2 million at a rate of £1 million per year for the next two years.
  The fund has put in place a number of schemes including:

  The Small Grants Scheme

  The Chronic Pain Management Scheme

  The Respite Break Scheme

  The Wheelchair Assessment Scheme

  The Amputee Assessment Scheme

  The Education and Training Scheme

  £225,000 for a Victim Support Grants Scheme (now closed) to assist community groups and voluntary organisations to take forward recommendations in the Bloomfield report.
  £6.1 million core funding for groups who support Victims of the Troubles.
  £500,000 for initiatives in Great Britain including £250,000 for the Legacy Project. This project aims to identify and meet the needs of Victims of the Troubles living in Great Britain.
  £1.5 million over next three years for the development of the Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation.
  £750,000 to fund the re-introduction of the Small Grants Scheme for victims' groups.
  £1.5 million over next two years to the devolved Administration's Strategy Implementation Fund to help NI Departments fulfil their commitment to addressing victims' needs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by her Department in each of the last 24 months; and if she will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33236]

  Clare Short
  My Department has purchased two television sets in the last two years, both digital. These are being installed in our newly-opened public information area, "infoZone", at our I Palace street office.

  We have no guidelines specifically on the purchase of televisions.

  Burundi
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's aid priorities in Burundi. [32277]

  Clare Short
  DFID does not have extensive developmental links with Burundi. We are seeking to support international efforts to promote an end to conflict and achieve a secure and lasting peace. We are at the same time supporting humanitarian programmes largely through non-governmental channels. In the current financial year we have committed £1 million for support for emergency health and nutrition programmes, and for the promotion of human rights and political dialogue. We envisage increasing this support during 2002. In addition the UK's share of ECHO's £20 million humanitarian budget for Burundi in 2001 was some £4 million. We have also committed £5.175 million for the implementation of a three-year project tackling the pressing problem of HIV/AIDS in Burundi, and have provisionally allocated US$1 million to the proposed Multilateral Debt Trust Fund for this country.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the instances in which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32040]

  Clare Short
  During the financial year 2000–01 my Department received 42,171 invoices in respect of goods or services and 40,762 (96.7 per cent.) of these bills were paid promptly. However given the nature of my Department's work and the involvement of our overseas offices in the payment cycle it is more difficult for us to achieve a high level of performance than it is for most other Government Departments.

  Ispat International
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from employees or directors of Ispat International between May 1997 and December 2001; and if she will list them by date and subject. [33112]

  Clare Short
  None.
  654W

  Goma
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made with the distribution of food to those people in Goma affected by the recent volcanic eruptions. [31667]

  Clare Short
  To date 1,204 tonnes of food have been distributed to people in Goma and surrounding areas affected by the volcanic eruptions. This has met the most urgent needs although the World Food Programme is currently working to improve its capacity to target the most vulnerable. Food monitors are expected to arrive shortly. A further 927 displaced living in the hard-to-reach island of Idjwi are expected to receive their first distribution of food shortly. AAA, a German NGO, is managing the distribution of 23 tonnes of food (beans, maize, oil, salt, sugar). The UK has allocated £2 million to meet the most urgent humanitarian needs, including food.

  Rwanda
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made on the state of refugee camps in Rwanda. [31665]

  Clare Short
  The conditions in the camps are not a cause for alarm and improvements are in hand. The Rwandan authorities are co-operating with the effort to improve conditions.

  Prior to the eruption of Nyarigongo on 18 January, there were about 31,000 Congolese, and 500 Burundian refugees in Rwanda. Although many more Congolese came to Rwanda in the immediate aftermath, most of these quickly returned to Congo.

  On 24 January the UN estimated that there were about 11,000 displaced by the eruption remaining in Nkamira and Mudende camps in Rwanda. The UK has provided £250,000 to the British Red Cross, who are responsible for basic services in the camps.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff in her Department have been seconded to jobs in the(a) private and (b) public sector in each of the last four years. [31771]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Private sector

  Public sector1

  1997–98

  1

  22

  1998–99

  1

  38

  1999–2000

  1

  41

  2000–01

  1

  49

  1 Most staff in this category have been seconded overseas to international development institutions and the European Commission.

  Education
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she is making to the IMF on the need to include financing free basic education in the public spending targets they set for developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [33521]
  655W
  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK has been at the forefront of encouraging the IMF to reform their medium term programmes to ensure that these deliver growth and poverty reduction. A key element of the new design of IMF programmes is the undertaking to support pro-poor budgets, which includes protecting and expanding where possible education spending. In recent years the IMF programmes have supported the introduction of free education in several countries, including Uganda and Tanzania.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Wheelchair Access
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will assess the accessibility for persons in wheelchairs of positions for advisers to Ministers in(a) Committee rooms and (b) the Chamber. [33361]

  Derek Conway
  All Committee rooms, including those in Portcullis House, have wide doors and are accessible to wheelchair users. In most rooms, furniture can be moved to provide space for wheelchairs, although manoeuvrability is limited in Committee rooms 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 because of the fixed furniture and fittings. If an adviser using a wheelchair was needed to support a Minister, special arrangements could be made.

  There are no plans to make the Officials' Box in the Chamber accessible to wheelchair users. If a wheelchair-using adviser was required to support a Minister, he or she would be able to do so from the area adjacent to the Officials' Box. A handrail has been fixed in the Officials' Box to assist people with disabilities.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Council how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by his Department in each of the last 24 months; and if he will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33230]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Privy Council Office has bought two analogue television sets during this period, but does not own any digital televisions. No specific guidance has been issued by my Department on the purchase of television sets. Both televisions were purchased from an approved supplier.

  Computer Equipment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the President of the Council how many installations of computer equipment in hon. Members' offices(a) within the parliamentary estate and (b) elsewhere since the inception of the current scheme remain incomplete; and how many were satisfactorily completed (i) within the timetable agreed with each Member concerned and (ii) by the end of each month including and since July 2001. [31111]
  656W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  Approximately 1,280 installations have been undertaken since 5 July 2001, just over half of them on the parliamentary estate. 61 are awaiting completion. Many of these have been deferred at the Member's request and await further instructions.

  Satisfaction levels with the new equipment are generally high.

  The number of installations completed during each month since July 2001 is shown in the table.

  Number of installations

  July 2001

  0

  August and September 2001

  229

  October 2001

  315

  November 2001

  550

  December 2001

  142

  January 20021

  44

  Total

  1,280

  1 Until 28 January.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members have had computer equipment installed in offices(a) within the parliamentary estate and (b) elsewhere since the inception of the current scheme; and of them how many were not Members of the last Parliament. [31110]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  528 Members have had equipment installed since the arrangements for central provision of IT equipment took effect in July. The number of installations to date is 1,280, and just over half of these were on the parliamentary estate. 95 of the Members who have received this equipment were not Members of the last Parliament.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the President of the Council how many contractors have been retained to install computer equipment in Members' offices(a) within the parliamentary estate and (b) elsewhere since the inception of the current scheme; and what assessment he has undertaken of their effectiveness. [31112]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  A third party supplier, Computacenter, provided contractors to install this equipment. I understand that up to 20 individuals were engaged on this task on any given day. A breakdown of their place of work is not readily available.

  Officials monitored the performance of the contractor by means of a system of weekly review. Any concerns were passed on to the contractor for action. We are hopeful that shortcomings experienced in the early months of the scheme have now been rectified and that the contractor is now meeting key targets.

WALES

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33255]
  657W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 58w.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorder in communities. [29861]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are taking urgent action to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorder. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has already outlined the measures we are taking to increase the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour order (ASBOs). These include proposals to:extend the power to apply for ASBOs to the British Transport Police and registered Social Landlords
  introduce an interim ASBO that can be issued prior to a full hearing
  extend the power to make ASBOs to county courts
  allowing ASBOs to 'travel with the person' in circumstances where the behaviour is likely to be repeated elsewhere.
  We are also speeding up the youth justice system as well as bringing in new community sentences for youth offenders such as Final Warnings, Child Safety Orders and Parenting Orders. Additionally, in the Police Reform Bill we propose new powers for the extended police family to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of antisocial behaviour orders in south Wales. [29873]

  Mr. Denham
  South Wales police were granted four ASBOs between April 1999 and September 2001. Applications are in progress in a number of other cases.

  South Wales police have a six-step strategy for dealing with antisocial behaviour, the application for an ASBO is the final step in that strategy. Other measures for dealing with antisocial behaviour include Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), prosecutions, warning letters, diversion schemes, mediation schemes and multi-agency case conferences.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to help the police tackle antisocial behaviour in small towns and villages. [29876]

  Mr. Denham
  We have introduced a range of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, which apply equally in all areas of the country. These include antisocial behaviour orders, child curfews and changes to the youth justice system. In addition, we have introduced new community sentences for youth offenders including Reparation Orders, Final Warnings, Child Safety Orders and Parenting Orders. We have also made additional funding available for the reduction of rural crime.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been successfully applied for in the area covered by the Lancashire constabulary. [29879]
  658W
  Mr. Denham
  From the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders in April 1999 to the end of September 2001 (the last point to which data are available), 16 orders have been granted to the Lancashire Constabulary.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that those at risk of persecution are not returned to Zimbabwe. [29862]

  Angela Eagle
  All applications for asylum are considered in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided on 15 January to suspend removals of unsuccessful asylum seekers to Zimbabwe until after the presidential election is held. We will then assess the country situation and the risks faced by individual returnees and decide whether to resume removals.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offending. [29863]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government's youth justice reforms include a wide range of measures to deal with persistent young offenders. We have delivered the youth justice pledge by halving the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders; funded the youth justice board's intensive supervision and surveillance programme for the most prolific offenders; provided direct support to address youth street crime in London; and introduced the detention and training order for persistent and more serious young offenders. We are also providing the courts with new powers to remand to secure accommodation for those juveniles who commit offences while on bail.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in the juvenile estate provide a pre-release scheme. [29606]

  Beverley Hughes
  All juvenile establishments work with Youth Offending Teams to plan the transfer of the young person into the community phase of the Detention and Training Order. Juvenile establishments plan a young person's release from prison with the young person's community supervising officer and where applicable his/her parents or carers. Release is planned from the start of a sentence through a series of meetings and action plans. A final meeting takes place 10 days before release in order to finalise arrangements for on-going support in the community. The personal officer from the custody setting then attends the first training plan meeting in the community. This ensures that the two parts of the sentence are linked. Sentence planning forms part of this process and is, so far as is possible, tailored to individual needs.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders aged 10 to 16 years are in institutions by region according to their home address expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentages for the latest date for which figures are available. [30595]
  659W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The number and percentage of juveniles (10 to 16-year-olds) detained in secure establishments broken down by home region on 31 December 2001 is shown in the table.

  Home region

  Number of juvenile offenders in secure establishments

  Percentage of total number of juvenile offenders

  North West

  230

  17.5

  West Midlands

  203

  15.5

  London

  188

  14.3

  Yorkshire

  171

  13.0

  East Midlands

  120

  9.2

  South East

  97

  7.4

  Wales

  93

  7.1

  Eastern

  84

  6.4

  South West

  69

  5.3

  North East

  56

  4.3

  Total

  1,311

  100.0

  Cannabis
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent changes in policy on prosecution for possession of cannabis. [29864]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is responsible for prosecuting criminal offences. There has been no change in CPS's policy on prosecution of offences for possession of cannabis.

  Graffiti
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking against graffiti. [29865]

  Mr. Denham
  Writing graffiti will normally constitute an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Where criminal proceedings are not appropriate, it can also be dealt with through a number of measures designed to address antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour orders.

  Our neighbourhood wardens programme and proposals for community safety officers will help to reduce yobbish behaviour, such as graffiti writing, in our neighbourhoods. We are also providing support through the Youth Justice Board for a range of projects to combat the problem of youth crime, including graffiti.

  Crime Detection
  18.Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the crime detection rate. [29866]

  Mr. Denham
  In the year ending March 2001, just under 1.25 million recorded crimes were detected. This amounted to 24 per cent. of all recorded crime in England and Wales in 2000–01.

  This figure is much higher for some crimes than for others—for example, 62 per cent. of all crimes of violence against the person were detected. Of that figure, 90 per cent. of homicides and 81 per cent. of attempted murders were detected.
  660W
  There are also striking variations in performance at both force and basic command unit (BCU) level. For example, in 2000–01, the detection rate for burglary across thirty comparable urban BCUs varied from 27.7 per cent. to just 5.5 per cent.

  There cannot be any justification for such variable performance in similar parts of the country. That is why the work of the Standards Unit will be so important: it is the means by which we will identify and spread good practice, driving the performance of all forces up to that of the best.

  Sex Offences
  21. Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase child protection through new sentences for sex offenders. [29869]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are looking at tougher determinate sentences for sex offenders that will ensure they stay in prison, up to the full term if necessary, or as long as they continue to present a risk of serious harm to our communities and that they are subject to strict and extended supervision on release.

  In addition the Government are concerned that the law should provide clear and coherent offences that protect all victims of sexual exploitation, especially children and the more vulnerable, with penalties that enable the appropriate punishment of abusers. My Home Office colleagues and I are currently reviewing the existing laws on sex offences with a view to introducing strengthened legislation when parliamentary time allows.

  Home Detention and Curfew Orders
  . David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the use of home detention and curfew orders; and if he will make a statement. [29872]

  Beverley Hughes
  Decisions to release prisoners on home detention curfew (HDC) are a matter for indivival Governors, within the guidance set down by the Prison Service, including a requirement for a rigorous risk assessment. Research undertaken by the Home Office shows that home detention curfew helps prisoners to make the transition between prison and the community. (Home Office Research Study 222, Electronic monitoring of released prisoners and evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme, March 2001). We have asked Governors to make full use of the scheme where they can do so without unacceptable risk to public safety.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also announced this morning at the Prison Service Conference, his intention to increase the maximum period that a curfewee may spend on HDC from two months to three months. The eligibility criteria, and the risk assessment process will not change.

  Police Morale
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the state of police morale. [29874]
  661W
  Mr. Denham
  There is no established direct method of measuring the level of morale in the police service.

  We are actively improving the resources of the police so they can play their key part in tackling crime and disorder and improving community safety. We are also determined to tackle those elements of police officers' working lives that can create frustration and detract from their ability to do their jobs in the way that they would wish.

  We are committed to investment in scientific and technological support and to reducing the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy. This should help officers to spend as much of their time as possible on the front line.

  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) has agreed in principle to a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service.

  The agreement is subject to ratification by all parties by the end of February. We believe that, taking the package as a whole, it will benefit the vast majority of officers.

  An ambitious programme of work in police training has begun to raise professional standards for officers and support staff, and to achieve greater consistency nationally.

  We have turned around the decline in police numbers that started under the last Government. Police numbers rose by 2,645 officers in the 12 months to September 2001, taking national strength to 127,231, the highest since February 1995. This increase, of 2.1 per cent. is the largest single annual increase in police numbers for 20 years.

  We have set the police service a target to reach record numbers of officers by this April, and 130,000 officers by spring 2003.

  Crime (Gwent)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of crime in Gwent. [29870]

  Mr. Denham
  In the 12 months to March 2001, crime in Gwent fell 5.7 per cent.

  Car Crime
  . Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) rates of detection and (b) impact on victims of car crime. [29875]

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody of five years or over in England and Wales, 1998 to 2000

  Offence

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Murder

  254

  252

  243

  Attempted murder

  47

  59

  55

  Threat or conspiracy to murder

  16

  15

  22

  Manslaughter

  101

  101

  112

  Child destruction

  —

  1

  —

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  43

  25

  44

  Manslaughter due to diminished responsibility

  3

  7

  7

  Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs

  8

  7

  7

  Wounding or other act endangering life

  366

  370

  394

  Other wounding etc.

  33

  28

  47

  Cruelty to or neglect of children

  —

  1

  4

  Child abduction

  1

  4

  —

  Buggery

  72

  50

  54

  662W
  Mr. Denham
  The successful detection and prosecution of offenders are among the key factors in ensuring that victims of crime are satisfied with the criminal justice system. Others include the provision to victims of adequate information about their cases, personal support, and compensation.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to amend sentencing policy. [29877]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) on 21 November 2001,Official Report column 355W, I said that I anticipated publishing a White Paper in spring 2002. That is still my intention. Earlier today I announced the publication of an overview of the responses to the consultation on the proposals arising from the review of the sentencing framework (the Halliday Report) a copy of which is being provided to each Member of Parliament.

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took to ensure that the views of young people were considered in his consultation on sentencing reform and the criminal courts. [29868]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Young people participated in the on-line consultation on the Fairer Sentencing website. They were able to contribute to the reform of criminal courts by visiting the review website. I am also attending events at various university law schools with the aim of giving young people an opportunity to express their views on this issue.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a summary of the responses to the public consultation on the review of the sentencing framework. [33486]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The summary of responses has been published today, 4 February 2002. Copies of the summary are being sent to each Member of Parliament and will be placed in the Library. Further copies will be available in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 843W, on prison sentences, if he will break down the numbers of prison sentences into the categories of offences for which custody of five years or over was handed down in each of those years. [31330]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table contains the information requested.
  663W

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody of five years or over in England and Wales, 1998 to 2000

  Offence

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Indecent assault on a male

  44

  35

  20

  Rape of a female

  494

  474

  442

  Rape of a male

  30

  33

  25

  Indecent assault on a female

  90

  95

  96

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13

  7

  10

  7

  Incest

  11

  9

  9

  Procuration

  —

  1

  —

  Burglary in a dwelling

  141

  166

  134

  Aggravated burglary in a dwelling

  58

  65

  59

  Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

  20

  16

  14

  Aggravated burglary in a building not a dwelling

  4

  4

  8

  Robbery

  646

  693

  749

  Blackmail

  13

  16

  8

  Kidnapping, etc.

  51

  59

  61

  Theft from the person of another

  10

  4

  4

  Theft by an employee

  2

  1

  1

  Theft or unauthorised taking from mail

  —

  1

  —

  Theft from vehicle

  —

  1

  —

  Theft from shops

  3

  —

  1

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  4

  —

  1

  Other theft or unauthorised taking

  2

  4

  4

  Fraud by company director etc.

  4

  —

  1

  False accounting

  1

  —

  1

  Other fraud

  35

  23

  31

  Handling stolen goods

  18

  10

  7

  Arson

  73

  59

  51

  Criminal damage endangering life

  4

  12

  5

  Other criminal damage

  2

  —

  1

  Threat etc., to commit criminal damage

  3

  —

  —

  Other forgery etc.

  3

  —

  6

  Violent disorder

  1

  1

  2

  Perjury

  —

  —

  1

  Gross indecency with children

  2

  5

  11

  Assist entry of illegal immigrant

  5

  3

  9

  Perverting the course of justice

  6

  l

  6

  Absconding from lawful custody

  —

  2

  1

  Firearms Act offence

  13

  11

  8

  Revenue law offence

  —

  1

  —

  Other (excluding motoring offences)

  12

  17

  12

  Unlawful importation of drugs

  Class A

  400

  499

  549

  Class B

  88

  79

  57

  Class C

  3

  —

  —

  Class unspecified

  53

  26

  13

  Unlawful exportation of drugs

  Class A

  2

  4

  3

  Class B

  4

  1

  —

  Class unspecified

  3

  —

  1

  Production, supply and possession with intent to supply a controlled drug

  Class A

  433

  549

  550

  Class B

  56

  56

  51

  Class C

  —

  —

  1

  Class unspecified

  7

  28

  8

  Possession of a controlled drug

  Class A

  6

  4

  6

  Class B

  1

  1

  —

  Other drug offences

  11

  10

  9

  Total

  3,823

  4,009

  4,033

  Police Retention
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy to improve the retention of police officers. [29878]

  Mr. Denham
  Police numbers rose by 2.1 per cent. in the 12 months to September 2001. Wastage from the police service, at around 5 per cent. of strength for the last four years, is low compared to other occupations.
  664W
  But we recognise the importance of retaining the skills and commitment of experienced officers.

  An ambitious programme of work in police training has begun to raise professional standards for officers and support staff, and to achieve greater consistency nationally.

  We are also addressing retention issues as part of the police reform process.
  665W
  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) has agreed in principle to a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service. The agreement is subject to ratification by all parties by the end of February. We believe that, taking the package as a whole, it will benefit the vast majority of officers.

  The PNB package includes more flexible arrangements to retain officers who are entitled to retire with maximum pension benefits.

  We also intend to remove the requirement for part-time officers to work a minimum of 16 hours a week. This will help improve retention of officers with parental or caring responsibilities.

  We are also developing an Occupational Health strategy which will provide support of officers who are injured or ill and will help forces improve sickness management and reduce medical retirements.

  British Crime Survey
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of crime recorded by the British Crime Survey. [29881]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest British Crime Survey shows that since 1997 overall crime has fallen by 21 per cent., violent crime by 23 per cent., domestic burglary by 35 per cent., and vehicle related theft by 24 per cent. The survey also showed that the chance of becoming a victim of crime is at its lowest since the survey began.

  Police (Funding)
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he applied in deferring the provisional funding settlement for police authorities in 2002–03.

  Mr. Denham
  The provisional police funding settlement is routinely announced in association with the provisional local government finance settlement. The settlement announcement for 2002–03 was moved from 29 November to 4 December as a result of the progress of other parliamentary business.

  Police Constables
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the office of police constable. [29883]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans to change the status of constables as office holders under the Crown.

  Police Expenditure (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role his Department has in relation to decisions by the appropriate Secretary in the National Assembly for Wales to(a) set limits on and (b) cap the expenditure of a police authority; and if he will make a statement. [29884]

  Mr. Denham
  Police authorities in Wales, as in England, are responsible for setting budgets and precepts. However, local government finance is a devolved issue. Reserve powers over local authority budgets under the 666W
  terms of the Local Government Act 1999, rest, for police authorities in Wales, with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Asylum Seekers
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform the system of financial support for asylum seekers. [29885]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to introduce a new system by autumn 2002 which will replace vouchers. We are examining the best method of using the new Application Registration Card to access appropriate cash payments. Our aim is a scheme which will be more efficient and less socially divisive.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time has been over the last six months for individuals granted refugee status to have their grant confirmed in writing. [31946]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available, and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with children's organisations on how the proposals in the forthcoming asylum White Paper will affect asylum-seeking children and young people. [31821]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 302W.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees and asylum seekers will be kept in Winchester prison as of 31 January. [33060]

  Angela Eagle
  The temporary use of a number of local prisons to provide additional spaces for immigration detainees ended on 12 January. This includes Her Majesty's prison Winchester.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to implement the increase in the cash allowance for asylum seekers supported by NASS; [30827]

  (2) what plans he has for the general uprating of support for asylum seekers in line with changes in income support to be introduced in April 2002. [30828]

  Angela Eagle
  We will introduce these changes to the voucher scheme operated by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) on 8 April 2002. The cash element of subsistence support will be uprated from £10 to £14 and the levels of support will be increased so that the 70 per cent. parity with income support rates for adults and 100 per cent. parity for children are restored. The new rates of support are shown in the table (applicable only to asylum seekers supported by NASS).
  667W

  Revised levels of voucher support for NASS supported asylum seekers and any dependants from 8 April 2002

  £

  Current levels of support since 3 April 2000

  Levels of support from 8 April 2002

  Qualifying couple

  57.37

  59.26

  Lone parent aged 18 or over

  36.54

  37.77

  Single person aged 25 or over

  36.54

  37.77

  Single person aged at least 18 but under 25

  28.95

  29.89

  Person aged at least 16 but under 18 (except a member of a qualifying couple)

  31.75

  32.50

  Asylum seekers in receipt of the full support package (accommodation and subsistence) receive fully furnished accommodation including cooking utensils. Council tax and utilities are paid for centrally.

  Drug Awareness
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he is taking to promote drug awareness. [29867]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A key focus of the government's anti-drug strategy is ensuring young people and their parents or carers are aware of the dangers of drugs and where to get help. Drugs education policies are in place in 93 per cent. of secondary and 75 per cent. of primary schools. Information about drugs is routinely sent to schools, GP surgeries and police stations. In December, we launched a campaign to raise the awareness of the risks of drugs and to encourage young people, their parents or carers to call the National Drugs Helpline on 0800 776600 for reliable and credible information about the harm drugs cause.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of Gibraltarians resident in the UK. [32021]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. George Howarth, dated 4 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of Gibraltarians resident in the United Kingdom. (3202)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of numbers of UK residents by country of birth and by nationality. The estimate of the number of UK residents who were born in Gibraltar, based on an average over the 12 month period December 2002 to November 2001, is 12,000. The LFS sample size is too small to provide a reliable estimate of the number of nationals to Gibraltar who are resident in the UK.

  Monaghan Bombings Inquiry
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will expedite the provision of relevant material relating to the 1974 Monaghan bombings to the Committee of Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [22389]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.
  668W
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland met with Mr. Justice Barron, sole member of the independent inquiry into the Dublin/Monaghan and Dundalk bombings, on 17 January. The then Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland) and the Northern Ireland Forensic Science Agency have already provided replies to a number of points raised by the inquiry. The Secretary of State is not yet in a position to provide the information requested from the Government; he hopes to do so in the near future.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials from his Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29012]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: One official is due to attend the course in February 2002. Officials have also attended Civil Service College courses on environmental and energy issues and environmental management systems. Officials have also attended seminars and workshops on a number of environmental issues such as energy management, green transport, waste and procurement. The Department has also held a green purchasing symposium for procurement staff and a number of seminars for building managers.

  The Prison Service has also arranged training for staff on energy management, green procurement and environmental management systems and has plans to include an environmental booklet in their staff induction package.

  Board of Visitors
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to see a member of the Board of Visitors have been made since April 2000. [29600]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally. All applications to the board from prisoners are recorded in a book which is inspected by the Governor on a regular basis. A manual count at each of the 136 establishments would be required and this would be time consuming and costly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 10 December 2001 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. John Alvsine Bangura. [29961]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 4 February.

  Police Pensions
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if contributions to the Police Pension Scheme made before 5 April 1978 took into account provision for a pro rata pension for widows; and for what reason pensions are not paid to the widows of police officers who married or re-married after their retirement if that retirement was before 5 April 1978. [30762]
  669W
  Mr. Denham
  It is a principle in public service pension schemes that members are required to contribute towards the cost of their benefits. Prior to 5 April 1978 the police scheme attracted a widow's pension of half the husband's pension. However, in line with other public service pension schemes, it did not provide survivor benefits for wives married to those who had already retired from the police service. Officers' pension contributions at the time reflected this. The greater current contribution rate of 11 per cent. partly reflects the additional benefit of the provision of pensions for post-retirement widows.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are claiming a retirement pension; and how many of those retired before 5 April 1978. [30750]

  Mr. Denham
  The data requested are not collated centrally.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers who retired before 5 April 1978 remarried after that date; and what estimate he has made of(a) the average pension payment and (b) the total cost to the Government of paying widows of those police officers on the same basis as the widows of police officers who retired after that date. [30751]

  Mr. Denham
  The data requested are not available centrally. The Government Actuary's Department has estimated that the capitalised cost of agreeing to this

  Persons proceeded against under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England and Wales, 1999 and 2000

  Offence description

  Statute

  Proceeded against

  Sentenced

  Absolute/conditional discharge

  Fine

  1999

  Unauthorised access to computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 1

  6

  3

  2

  —

  Unauthorised Access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 2

  3

  1

  —

  1

  Unauthorised modification of computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 3

  4

  7

  —

  1

  Total

  13

  11

  2

  2

  2000

  Unauthorised access to computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 1

  8

  9

  3

  4

  Unauthorised Access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Unauthorised modification of computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec 3.

  8

  5

  1

  1

  Total

  19

  15

  4

  5

  Offence description

  Statute

  Community sentence

  Suspended Sentence

  Immediate custody

  Other

  1999

  Unauthorised access to computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Unauthorised Access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unauthorised modification of computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 3

  2

  1

  3

  —

  Total

  3

  1

  3

  —

  2000

  Unauthorised access to computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Unauthorised Access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  670W
  retrospective change across public service pension schemes would be in the region of £300 million to £500 million.

  Internet and Computer Crime
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has had on an international level to discuss the problems of internet and computer crime. [30818]

  Mr. Denham
  Officials have taken part in recent discussions in the G8 Hi-Tech Crime Subgroup, expert meetings in Europol and more generally within the European Union and Council of Europe.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested and charged with internet and computer crime since 1997; and what sentences they have received where convicted. [30817]

  Mr. Denham
  No information is collected on numbers of people charged. Also the statistics available on arrests do not identify internet and computer crimes separately.

  The available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relates to England and Wales for the years 1999 and 2000 and is shown in the tables. It covers persons proceeded against under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, those convicted, together with sentences received.
  671W

  Offcence description

  Staute

  Community sentence

  Suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Other

  Unauthorised modification of computer material

  Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec 3.

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Total

  2

  —

  4

  —

  Notes:

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  2 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 at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been introduced since 1997 to combat Internet and computer crime; and if he will make a statement. [30815]

  Mr. Denham
  In November 2000 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a £25 million investment in the police over three years specifically to fight hi-tech crime and to enhance the capability of the police at a national and local level to investigate computer based offences. The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit was established in April 2001.

  The Task Force for the Protection of Children on the Internet was established in March 2001 and includes representatives of the internet industry, child welfare organisations, the police and Government. Its aim is to make the United Kingdom (UK) the best and safest place in the world for children to use the internet and to help protect children the world over from abuse fuelled by criminal misuse of new technologies.

  Government support the work of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). Its aims are to determine whether particular newsgroups carry potentially illegal material; to

  Complaints received by the police

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  976

  1,035

  852

  871

  845

  Bedfordshire

  217

  247

  161

  207

  194

  Cambridgeshire

  458

  473

  410

  390

  281

  Cheshire

  489

  600

  597

  556

  495

  Cleveland

  375

  342

  326

  400

  318

  Cumbria

  419

  315

  289

  286

  283

  Derbyshire

  384

  443

  400

  421

  298

  Devon and Cornwall

  760

  911

  798

  645

  704

  Dorset

  185

  164

  165

  239

  267

  Durham

  166

  163

  181

  168

  181

  Essex

  573

  559

  510

  538

  549

  Gloucestershire

  323

  328

  272

  296

  258

  Greater Manchester

  2,149

  2,181

  2,211

  2,281

  1,807

  Hampshire

  948

  897

  654

  594

  523

  Hertfordshire

  312

  466

  416

  502

  491

  Humberside

  431

  444

  425

  410

  364

  Kent

  657

  675

  624

  678

  620

  Lancashire

  886

  848

  850

  918

  682

  Leicestershire

  292

  266

  280

  315

  333

  Lincolnshire

  169

  141

  310

  328

  313

  London City of

  133

  126

  69

  63

  60

  Merseyside

  2,028

  2,270

  1,429

  1,312

  911

  Metropolitan police

  9,122

  8,037

  7,154

  6,611

  5,830

  Norfolk

  423

  519

  326

  433

  365

  Northamptonshire

  294

  331

  256

  212

  221

  Northumbria

  650

  671

  629

  668

  661

  North Yorkshire

  370

  343

  363

  441

  441

  Nottinghamshire

  754

  812

  689

  817

  770

  South Yorkshire

  473

  454

  551

  666

  582

  Staffordshire

  587

  598

  511

  629

  803

  Suffolk

  287

  308

  268

  374

  229

  Surrey

  497

  561

  639

  477

  460

  Sussex

  864

  1,076

  1,153

  1,734

  1,814

  Thames Valley

  742

  604

  768

  756

  768

  672W
  trace the originator; to ask internet service providers (ISPs) to remove the material from their servers; and to send details of the site to the UK police, or to the enforcement agency of the country concerned via the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) if the originator is abroad. Since it was established, the IWF has asked UK ISPs to remove nearly 30,000 illegal items from the Internet.

  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides law enforcement and security agencies with strictly circumscribed powers to investigate the use of computers and the Internet to engage in criminal activities.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made about police officers in each police area in each of the last five years; and how many have been upheld. [31055]

  Mr. Denham
  Complaints and Discipline Statistics are published annually in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The latest statistics relating to 2000–01 were published on 14 November 2001 in issue number 21/01. Details are given in the following tables:
  673W

  Complaints received by the police

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Warwickshire

  165

  180

  206

  194

  205

  West Mercia

  506

  517

  454

  578

  410

  West Midlands

  1,681

  1,676

  1,590

  1,868

  1,884

  West Yorkshire

  966

  864

  796

  871

  795

  Wiltshire

  162

  185

  259

  230

  266

  Dyfed-Powys

  202

  183

  180

  148

  157

  Gwent

  427

  446

  505

  557

  487

  North Wales

  392

  353

  381

  439

  297

  South Wales

  965

  723

  752

  733

  747

  Total

  33,859

  33,335

  30,659

  31,854

  28,969

  Complaints against the police upheld

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  26

  28

  16

  27

  Bedfordshire

  14

  3

  11

  9

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  42

  15

  28

  18

  Cheshire

  16

  11

  17

  11

  10

  Cleveland

  13

  2

  12

  0

  5

  Cumbria

  2

  1

  7

  7

  0

  Derbyshire

  26

  5

  8

  2

  7

  Devon and Cornwall

  14

  38

  26

  24

  22

  Dorset

  3

  6

  7

  3

  5

  Durham

  7

  5

  1

  5

  4

  Essex

  14

  22

  25

  6

  12

  Gloucestershire

  12

  12

  3

  11

  5

  Greater Manchester

  22

  20

  20

  30

  40

  Hampshire

  30

  22

  24

  22

  20

  Hertfordshire

  15

  12

  10

  8

  20

  Humberside

  8

  18

  9

  14

  14

  Kent

  27

  26

  24

  26

  63

  Lancashire

  30

  12

  15

  13

  26

  Leicestershire

  10

  15

  10

  5

  13

  Lincolnshire

  12

  6

  6

  5

  7

  London City of

  7

  5

  6

  4

  3

  Merseyside

  11

  7

  12

  6

  36

  Metropolitan police

  203

  236

  146

  168

  138

  Norfolk

  26

  11

  28

  11

  17

  Northamptonshire

  9

  1

  6

  9

  7

  Northumbria

  8

  12

  6

  3

  12

  North Yorkshire

  13

  10

  27

  20

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  13

  1

  12

  26

  South Yorkshire

  3

  13

  11

  18

  14

  Staffordshire

  7

  9

  6

  20

  34

  Suffolk

  12

  11

  24

  11

  5

  Surrey

  7

  5

  17

  7

  17

  Sussex

  33

  23

  31

  54

  79

  Thames Valley

  27

  32

  23

  37

  45

  Warwickshire

  6

  6

  4

  6

  9

  West Mercia

  14

  6

  23

  13

  11

  West Midlands

  23

  61

  47

  26

  38

  West Yorkshire

  54

  26

  13

  13

  19

  Wiltshire

  2

  27

  5

  3

  11

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  3

  1

  5

  4

  Gwent

  7

  3

  5

  3

  8

  North Wales

  5

  9

  14

  7

  13

  South Wales

  28

  17

  11

  13

  17

  Total

  834

  850

  745

  714

  903

  Traffic Wardens
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the training which would be required to ensure traffic wardens could effectively discharge the extended powers proposed in the Policing a New Century White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [30825]

  Mr. Denham
  Chief officers will be required to ensure that all staff who are designated as community support officers, including traffic wardens, receive training that is 674W
  appropriate both to the functions that they will be performing and the powers that have been conferred on them.

  The new Police Skills and Standards Organisation will have an important role in drawing up these training requirements.

  Police Training
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of training direction and guidance given to police officers driving to emergency incidents. [30821]
  675W
  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recognises that the police service has a fundamental duty to equip officers with the necessary skills, through training, to undertake their operational tasks successfully and safely.

  In December 2000, ACPO launched its new police driver training course, introducing a universal standard for driving in England and Wales. An essential element of the course is to emphasise that officers must recognise the need to give priority to public safety above all other considerations such as attending an incident or apprehending a suspect.

  Police Vehicles
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) deaths and (b) incidents of serious injury involving police vehicles have been recorded in each of the past five years. [30822]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is set out in the table and relates to the number of serious injuries and deaths involving police vehicles engaged in immediate/ emergency response or pursuit.

  Deaths

  Serious injury

  1996–97

  15

  207

  1997–98

  15

  200

  1998–99

  11

  210

  1999–2000

  14

  115

  2000–01

  18

  160

  Notes:

  1.The information has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), to which forces submit statistical returns.

  2.Two forces did not submit a return in 1996–97, one force did not submit a return in 1998–99 and 2000–01.

  3.All figures for financial year.

  4.The figures are numbers of deaths/injuries, not numbers of accidents.

  5.The figures include both police and civilian casualties.

  Asylum White Paper
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to involve asylum seeking children and young people in the consultation on the forthcoming Asylum White Paper. [30703]

  Angela Eagle
  The forthcoming White Paper will be available widely to those with an interest. For example, the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Childrens Stakeholders Group which pays particular attention to issues relating to asylum seeking children and young people.

  Internet Pornography
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been introduced since 1997 to combat Internet pornography. [30816]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are determined to tackle illegal pornography whether on or off line, and the criminal law applies equally to both.

  We are particularly concerned to deal with child pornography both on and off line. In January 2001, we raised the maximum penalties for taking, making,
  676W
  distributing or showing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children to 10 years (from three years), and the maximum penalty for simple possession of such material to five years (from six months).

  In November 2000, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a £25 million investment in the police over three years specifically to fight hi-tech crime and to enhance the capability of the police at a national and local level to investigate computer based offences, including the possession and distribution of illegal pornography.

  In March 2001, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), established a Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet. The task force began work in May. It is a partnership of: representatives from Internet service and communication providers; the Internet Watch Foundation, set up in 1996 which provides a hotline for the public to report child pornography; PC and software retailers and manufacturers; child welfare organisations; the main opposition parties; law enforcement agencies and academics. The task force is looking at proposals for legislation to tackle paedophile 'grooming' activity on and off-line; a best practice model of Internet chat safety measures for providers and computer awareness training for the police and child protection practitioners.

  Internationally, the Government actively support efforts within the European Union, and more widely, to combat child pornography on the Internet. In November 2001, we signed the Council of Europe convention on Cybercrime, which will underpin co-operative action between signatory states in respect of computer-related crimes, including the making, distribution and possession of child pornography.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were murdered by use of a firearm in 2001. [30745]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest published information is for the year ending March 2001. In that year, there were 73 homicides where a firearm was used.

  Fingerprinting (Training)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the training standards for fingerprint experts were last reviewed. [30707]

  Mr. Denham
  The training standards for fingerprint experts have recently been revised. All new fingerprint officers undergo the new modular training programme which incorporates the impact of the change from the previous 16 point standard. The new training programme began being rolled out from 1 April 2001.

  Police (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in Lancashire in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [31220]

  Mr. Denham
  Lancashire constabulary employed 3,247 full-time equivalent officers on 31 March 1997 and 3,288 on 30 September 2001.

  The force also employed 1,409 civilian support staff on 30 September 2001, 283 more than at 31 March 1997.

  Burglary (Uxbridge)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been awarded to schemes under the Reducing Burglary Initiative in the Uxbridge constituency in the last 12 months. [31359]

  Mr. Denham
  We did not receive any bids for funding for burglary reduction projects in this area.

  Drug Deaths (Reading)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the change in the number of drug deaths in Reading in the last 12 months and his strategy to combat the spread of hard drugs. [31347]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of drug-related deaths for the Reading unitary area held by the Office for National Statistics are in the table.

  Number of deaths

  1998

  9

  1999

  6

  2000

  15

  Reading has a new dedicated Drug Action Team (DAT), which is continuing to address the problems of drug misuse highlighted as issues when Reading was part of the Berkshire DAT. Reading DAT is carrying out a needs analysis to quantify the local drugs misuse problem and, in line with all DATs, is preparing a drug action plan for submission to the Home Office by the end of April.

  The Government are determined to reduce the number of drug-related deaths. That is why we have published an action plan which sets out all the activities that need to be taken over a three-five year period to reduce drug-related deaths by 20 per cent. by 2004. The plan covers three strands:
  campaigns—to increase the awareness and skills of those working in the drug sector and drug users;
  better surveillance and monitoring—because we are concerned that precise levels of drug-related deaths are not clearly identified and;
  research—to improve the information on causes of drug-related death and provide advice on strategies and service approaches.

  We know we need to be more effective in tackling the harms caused by Class A drugs. The action plan is one of the measures we are taking to increase the focus on harm minimisation, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 October 2001. He also announced his intention to seek advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on their assessment for reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C, the setting up a group of key experts to tackle the treatment of crack cocaine addiction and, with the Department of Health, the development of new guidance for heroin prescribing.

  Child Curfews
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) local authorities and (b) police services have applied to introduce a local child curfew; how many local child curfews have been introduced; and if he will make a statement. [29689]
  678W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which took effect on 1 August 2001, extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. Local areas are assessing the implications of these changes and we know that local consultation is taking place in some of them. Applications to establish curfews are a discretionary matter for local authorities and the police, to be considered in the light of local needs and wider strategies to deal with disorder in their areas.

  Air-guns
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase controls on the(a) use and (b) ownership of (ii) air rifles and (ii) air pistols. [31339]

  Mr. Denham
  There are already strict laws in place to control the use and possession of air weapons including age limits for acquisition and possession and controls on their possession in a public place.

  We are aware that some air pistols which operate on the air cartridge system have been found to be readily convertible to fire live ammunition. We are currently in discussion with the importers and the Forensic Science Service, considering what needs to be done to establish the full extent and nature of the problem and how to tackle it.

  Hampshire Police
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise the cost of living allowance for Hampshire Police. [31139]

  Mr. Denham
  Following a recommendation from the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) on 8 February 2001, the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) approved a new allowance of £1,000, from 1 April 2001, for officers in Hampshire appointed on or after 1 September 1994, and not in receipt of housing allowance.

  Any case for increasing the allowance for officers in Hampshire would first have to be made in the PNB. However, it should be noted that the Police Arbitration Tribunal, in rejecting a Staff Side claim for a wider regional allowance, confirmed the PNB agreement of 8 February, including the allowance of £1,000 for qualifying officers in Hampshire.

  The PNB is the statutory negotiating body for police pay and conditions of service. Representatives from the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation sit on the board, as well as the Secretary of State. The process of negotiation, which led to the joint recommendation on 8 February, will have afforded Hampshire Police Authority and the Chief Constable of Hampshire the opportunity to comment on the proposed new allowance for officers in Hampshire.

  On 27 December 2001, PNB reached agreement in principle on a package of changes to police pay and conditions. If implemented, the agreement will provide

  679W
  for older recruits to receive a higher starting salary from I April 2003, enabling forces to attract more experienced recruits to the police service.

  Human Trafficking
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of legislation prohibiting and punishing human trafficking; and if he will make a statement. [31157]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government consider that effective legislation to criminalise and punish trafficking in human beings is an important component of any strategy to tackle this crime. This must also encompass effective enforcement, alongside support and assistance for victims, and prevention and education.

  United Kingdom (UK) Ministers were among the first to sign the Trafficking Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime and are committed to implementing its measures, one of which is the introduction of trafficking offences. To take measures forward, the European Union Framework Decision on trafficking in human beings has been provisionally agreed by representatives of all European Union member states and will be adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council as a legally binding document in the near future. We will introduce legislation to introduce criminal offences into UK law as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Migrant Workers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of his policy on signing the 1990 UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families; and if he will make a statement. [31156]

  Angela Eagle
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 900W.

  Essex Police
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance he is giving to Essex Police to increase the numbers of officers. [31491]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, Essex police has been allocated a total of 197 recruits over and above the force's previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003.

  The force was unable to recruit any of its CFF allocation of 70 officers in 2000–01, but was allowed to carry-over the allocation into 2001–02. The force currently expects to recruit at least 127 CFF officers this financial year.

  Essex police strength rose from 2,818 at 30 September 2000 to 2,937 at 30 September 2001. This was an increase of 4.2 per cent.

  Essex officers appointed since 1 September 1994 and not in receipt of housing allowance, benefit from an allowance of £2,000 per annum which has been payable since 1 April 2001.
  680W
  We have also announced the creation of a task force, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, Her Majesty's retiring Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to consider the steps necessary to deliver a significant increase in the capacity of police officers to provide a visible presence in the community.

  Police Officers (Length of Service)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio between police officers of less than a year's experience and those of more than a year's experience in each police authority area. [30456]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The information is not held centrally.

  CID Officers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of CID officers were recruited in 2001 as a ratio against those who left. [30457]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Police Earnings
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average earnings of a police officer in(a) London and (b) Surrey. [31556]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The information is not available in the format requested.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio is between the average earnings of (1) a superintendent and the average house price in(a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear; [31502]

  (2) a police officer with three years' service and the average house price in (a)Surrey, (b)London,(c)Yorkshire and (d)Tyne and Wear; [31499]

  (3) what the ratio is between the average earnings of a police officer with 10 years' service and the average house price in (a)Surrey, (b)London, (c)Yorkshire and(d)Tyne and Wear. [31498]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The information is not available in the format requested as no data are held in this context on average house prices.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio is between the average earnings of a chief inspector and the average house price in(a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear. [31501]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The information is not available in the format requested; no data are held in this context on average house prices.

  The current national pay scale for Chief Inspectors is £38,124 to £40,773. The scale for a Chief Inspector serving in the Metropolitan police or City of London police forces is £39,729 to £42,378. An individual's salary will be determined by his length of service in the rank.
  681W
  Depending upon the force to which he belongs, and his length of service, a chief inspector may be entitled to housing allowance or transitional rent allowance.

  A Chief Inspector in London will, if appointed before 1 September 1994, get London weighting of £1,773 a year and a London allowance of £1,011 a year.

  Police Houses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 846W, on police houses, in what circumstances such an officer who remained a tenant from the present day until July 2002 would not enjoy a right to buy at that date. [31563]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: Those Metropolitan police service tenants who became secure tenants as a result of amendments to the Housing Act 1985 made by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, will acquire a right to buy once they have occupied the property for two years, ie at July 2002.

  If the officer was not a secure tenant (under the Housing Act 1985) in July 2002, the right to buy would not arise.

  We propose in the Police Reform Bill to remove the Metropolitan police authority from the secure tenancy regime, while ensuring that any secure tenant who has acquired the right to buy at the time of Royal Assent of the Bill will have a three month period of grace to exercise that right.

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the Metropolitan police service intends to write to those tenants affected to give early notification of the provisions of the Bill.

  Community Sentences
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions about the non-production of medical certificates when there is a failure to comply with a community sentence on health grounds. [32238]

  Beverley Hughes
  My officials met representatives of the Department of Health and the Cabinet Office deregulation unit last year to discuss this issue. Work is in progress examining various ways in which to validate offenders' claims of unfitness to attend community sentence appointments through ill health.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made in 2002 under the terms of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [29854]

  Beverley Hughes
  None. I would like to inform my hon. Friend that there has been no exercises of the powers of arrest in 2002 as of yesterday under the terms of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but eight people were detained in 2001 under Part 4 of the Act.
  682W

  Afghan Hijackers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the hijackers of the Afghan jet which landed at Stansted airport(a) have been deported and (b) remain in the UK. [31399]

  Angela Eagle
  None of those recently convicted of hijacking the Afghan jet which landed at Stansted airport have been deported. All those convicted have made asylum applications. For those who have been given long sentences, decisions on their immigration status, including the question of deportation from the United Kingdom, will be taken towards the end of those sentences: the situation in Afghanistan could change significantly by the time they are released and a decision taken now might not be relevant in two years time. The applications of those who received shorter sentences, two of whom have now been released, are under consideration now.

  Nine convicted hijackers remain in the United Kingdom. One suspected hijacker was too ill to stand trial: a medical report is awaited.

  Household Burglaries
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many household burglaries there were by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year for which figures are available. [30586]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The requested information is given in the table.

  Burglary in a dwelling: offences by region1, England and Wales

  Region

  Percentage of England and Wales total

  Offences recorded

  Offences per 100.000 population

  London

  17.4

  70,217

  964

  North-west

  17.3

  69,826

  1,015

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  14.5

  58,561

  1,160

  West midlands

  11.5

  46,362

  869

  South-east

  10.1

  40,662

  503

  East midlands

  8.1

  32,711

  780

  South-west

  6.9

  27,792

  563

  East of England

  5.7

  22,983

  424

  North-east

  5.4

  21,720

  841

  Wales

  3.0

  12,150

  414

  England and Wales

  402,984

  765

  1 12 months ending March 2001

  Asylum and Immigration Cases
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the processing of(a) asylum and (b) immigration cases. [29858]

  Angela Eagle
  In his statement on 29 October 2001, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out a substantial package of measures to overhaul our immigration and asylum policy. We will shortly be publishing a White Paper containing details of the Government's proposals for a comprehensive approach to asylum, immigration and nationality in order to improve the processing of cases.

>DEFENCE

  European Capabilities
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which of the expert panels taking work forward on the Helsinki Headline Goal the UK will chair; and if he will make a statement. [31619]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Capabilities Action Plan working groups will not be fully established until the middle of February. Discussions are under way to determine the composition of each group. The UK has indicated that it wishes to be fully involved in this initiative and would be willing to take the lead in co-ordinating the work in some capability areas.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the Helsinki Headline Goal will be contributed to by non-EU countries; what negotiations have taken place to secure such contributions; and if he will make a statement. [31618]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Helsinki Headline Goal is a target for EU member states, although additional contributions to the improvement of European capabilities from non-EU countries have been welcomed. These contributions have been offered voluntarily by the countries concerned.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to pursue bilateral arrangements along the lines of the UK/Netherlands Amphibious force with other European countries; and if he will make a statement. [31620]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK/Netherlands Amphibious Force has been very successful. For some time we have been considering whether similar approaches elsewhere could bring benefits. The working groups being formed to address the remaining Helsinki Headline Goal capability shortfalls provide a suitable context in which to consider such initiatives.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are being pledged to meet the Helsinki Headline Goal; and if he will make a statement. [32131]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK has identified a range of forces as a possible contribution towards the Helsinki Headline Goal. This includes a pool of 20,000 ground troops, from which a maximum of 12,500 could be deployed at any one time. Maritime and air forces have also been identified. The scale and type of forces committed to a particular operation would be decided by the Government according to the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the gaps in capability to meet the Helsinki Headline Goal; and if he will make a statement. [32130]

  Mr. Hoon
  Offers from EU member states have so far met 104 of the 144 capability requirements that underpin the Headline Goal. Approximately half of the remaining shortfalls are considered to be militarily significant. Member states are currently forming working groups under the European Capabilities Action Plan to address these areas.
  684W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the maximum geographical range of EU-led operations with existing strategic airlift capability; and if he will make a statement. [33021]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision to undertake an operation would be based on an assessment of a number of factors, including the feasibility of delivering and sustaining the required scale of forces at the necessary range. The EU member states recognise that strategic mobility is likely to be an important aspect of any military operation and are working to improve their capabilities in this area.

  Salaries
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget is represented by salaries; what the total sum is for(a) the uniformed services and (b) his Department's civilian employees; and what the percentage of both is paid out in (i) Scotland and (ii) overseas. [32451]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: Information on salaries for the current financial year is provided in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 —Ministry of Defence" (Cm 5109) and in the Ministry of Defence Departmental Performance Report (Cm 5290). Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Information on the percentage of salaries paid in Scotland and overseas is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2l January 2002,Official Report, column 594W, on special advisers, how many special advisers have left his Department since May 1997; on how many occasions the Head of his Department has recommended a gap between leaving employment in his Department and taking up outside employment; if he will list the gap for each occasion this has occurred; and if he will make a statement. [30300]

  The Prime Minister
  As with all civil servants, special advisers are covered by the Business Appointment Rules. They are only required to seek permission to take up outside appointments in the circumstances set out in the rules. Since May 1997, 10 special advisers have left my office. Four submitted applications under the Business Appointment Rules to take up outside appointments. One appointment was subject to a three month waiting period and a restriction and another subject to a restriction only. A further three special advisers have resigned from my office, one to join my political office, one to become a full-time civil servant, and one has been appointed as special adviser to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total cost to his Department has been of services provided by(a) Andersen and (b) Accenture, Andersen Consulting for (i) accountancy services, (ii) consultancy work and (iii) other work in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [32105]

  The Prime Minister
  No expenditure has been made by my office since 1997.

  Energy Industry
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Exxon-Mobil, (d) Enron, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf with regard to the Performance and Innovation Unit Energy Review; what meetings he held with each company; when the representations were received and the meetings held; if he will place related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [33223]

  The Prime Minister
  Over 400 responses have been received, most of which are available on the PIU website, www.piu.gov.uk.

  The PIU energy review will make recommendations on a range of issues and will be published in due course.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1997 when he has discussed UK energy policy with members of the American embassy in London; and if he will make a statement. [32506]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions he and his Department have held meetings since May 1997 with representatives from(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Exxon-Mobil, (d) Enron, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf; if he will state the purpose of each meeting; and if he will provide details of the outcomes and agreements reached as a result of each meeting. [33217]

  The Prime Minister
  As my official spokesman has already confirmed, I have not had formal meetings with representatives from Enron.

  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which he has met senior executives of energy companies since 7 June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [32810]

  The Prime Minister
  As my official spokesman has already confirmed, I have not had formal meetings with representatives from Enron.

  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.
  686W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 102W, on BP, for what reason his normal practice did not apply in respect of Enron; and if he will disapply it in respect of BP. [33303]

  The Prime Minister
  As with previous Administrations, it is not normal practice to provide details of ministerial meetings. However on this occasion because unsubstantiated and unjustified allegations were made against the Government it was thought right to make clear, without setting a precedent, where there had been meetings with the DTI as that is the lead Department dealing with energy policy.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister what information from the Railtrack administrator he has received to indicate that they have uncovered greater financial difficulties at the company than had previously been recognised. [33395]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he has given to Ministers on the time taken to respond to written parliamentary questions. [32855]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have made it clear that they are committed to providing prompt and accurate answers to parliamentary questions. The Secretary to the Cabinet has written to all Departments reminding them of the importance of answering parliamentary questions helpfully and within the required time scales.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of his special adviser with responsibility for issues relating to the broadcasting industry. [33325]

  The Prime Minister
  The special adviser works in the No. 10 Policy Directorate, which covers domestic policy including the broadcasting industry.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by his Department in each of the last 24 months; and if he will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33225]

  The Prime Minister
  My office has not bought any televisions during the last 24 months.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for making the decision about the switch off of the analogue television signal. [33326]

  The Prime Minister
  A decision to switch off analogue terrestrial television transmissions will be taken collectively by the Government. A number of Government Departments have an interest in managing the terrestrial broadcasting spectrum, in particular the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister in relation to the meeting that he had on 2 December 1999 with Lou Gerstner, what the criteria were according to which that meeting was arranged; what its outcome was; and if he will make a statement. [33670]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  UK-Japan 21st Century Group
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the agenda for the February conference of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. [32256]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK-Japan 21st Century Group is a non-governmental organisation.

  Acquis Communautaire
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement defining his interpretation of the acquis communautaire. [33262]

  The Prime Minister
  The acquis communautaire is generally understood to mean everything decided and agreed upon by the Communities and the state of Community law at any given time. It covers the whole range of principles, policies, laws, practices and obligations that have been agreed or that have been developed within the European Communities.

  Ispat International
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from employees or directors of Ispat International between May 1997 and December 2001; and if he will list them by date and subject. [33117]

  The Prime Minister
  On the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I wrote to the Romanian Prime Minister on 23 July 2001 welcoming the contract for the privatisation of the Romanian steel plant SIDEX with the British LNM group.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings have taken place and on which dates between(a) himself, (b)officials within the Prime Minister's office and (a)special advisers within the Prime Minister's office and representatives of Ispat International since May 1997. [33116]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister what events he is planning to attend as part of the golden jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the golden jubilee. [33243]
  688W
  The Prime Minister
  As present, I expect to attend the following events:

  29 April—-Hosting a dinner at No. 10 Downing street.

  30 April—Session of the Joint Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall at which Her Majesty will address both Houses.

  4 June—National thanksgiving service at St. Paul's.

  25 July—Opening of the Commonwealth games.

  4 August—Closing of the Commonwealth games.

TREASURY

  Independent Financial Advisers
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the defined payment system as outlined in the Financial Services Agency's polarisation paper will have on the number of independent financial advisers. [32902]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA consultation paper analyses the likely impact of these proposals on the IFA sector at paragraphs 4.19 to 4.21.

  It concludes that the IFA sector would be likely to shrink to some extent. This does not mean that these firms would go out of business, as existing IFA firms who do not want to move to the defined payment system proposed by the FSA would be able to operate as they do now, expect that they would not be able to hold themselves out as independent. This outcome also needs to be seen in the context of the current market where 80 per cent. of mass market consumers buying packaged products use the non-IFA or tied sector. These consumers should benefit from increased choice under the FSA's proposals.

  The FSA consultation exercise closes on 19 April.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32802]

  Ruth Kelly
  Monthly figures for all Departments could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Treasury has published full, financial year outturns for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (Cm 5101). Provisional financial year outturns for 2000–01 have been published in Public Expenditure 2000–01 Prvisional Outturn (Cm 5243).

  NDPBs (Payments)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32039]

  Ruth Kelly
  The bodies the Chancellor is responsible for have paid the following percentages of invoices within 30 days or within contractual arrangements.

  HM Treasury 99.09 per cent.; National Investment and Loans Office 100 per cent.; Department of National Savings 99.6 per cent.; Inland Revenue 98.65 per cent.; HM Customs and Excise 97.36 per cent.; and Royal Mint 95 per cent.

  More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households completed neither a tax return nor a tax credit claim form in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [32868]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold return information by household.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the concession under which the penalty for not submitting a return on time will not be charged if the Revenue reject a return as incomplete and the taxpayer returns it within 14 days will apply this year; and what the statutory authority is that allows the Revenue to reject a return in such circumstances. [32736]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Section 8 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 requires a person who is given a notice to make and deliver a return containing such information as may reasonably be required in the pursuance of the notice. The Inland Revenue will reject a return if it fails to satisfy the requirements of section 8.

  The term "incomplete" had the potential to be misleading and the Inland Revenue now refers to such rejected returns as "unsatisfactory".

  The 14 day period of grace will apply this year if a return received before the filing date is sent back to someone who has genuinely forgotten something, such as signing the return. The 14 day period of grace will not be given in cases where it appears a delaying tactic is being employed.

  A detailed explanation of the position was given in Inland Revenue Tax Bulletin 53.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) full and (b) partial regulatory impact assessments published in respect of the proposed change in the tax system since May 1997. [32926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All full and partial regulatory impact assessments are published on the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise internet sites. Copies of full regulatory impact assessments are also available in the House of Commons Library.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) only paid tax at the rate of 10p in the pound and (b) would have done so if they had not claimed the children's tax credit in 2000–01. [32867]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics" table 2.1, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website http: //www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/it_t01_1.htm.

  The children's tax credit was introduced in 2001–02.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the yield would be of increasing(a) the higher rate and (b) the standard rate of income tax by 1p. [32866]
  690W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to table 4 in the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Relief' published in November 2001, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the capital gains tax rate would be if the current yield was maintained but taper relief was abolished. [32864]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no separate capital gains tax rate. Capital gains are taxed on individuals using the income tax savings rates: 10 per cent., 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. The rate depends on how far the individual's income has used up the starting and basic rate bands. A rate of 34 per cent. applies to trusts.

  The cost of taper relief for 2001–02, the latest available year, is £580 million.

  Assuming an across the board cut in tax rates applicable to capital gains and ignoring behavioural changes, the relevant tax rates applied to individuals would be 7.4 per cent., 14.8 per cent. and 29.6 per cent. The rate for trusts would be 25.2 per cent.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (ref 27653) of 10 January, on gross receipts of the windfall tax on Railtrack. [32950]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to the hon. Lady's question on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 516W.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a progressive beer duty to assist small-scale brewers. [31310]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1003W.

  Tax Credits
  Alan Keen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent quarterly statistical returns are of the number of awards for(a) working families tax credit, (b) disabled persons tax credit and (c) children's tax credit for (i) the constituency of Brentford and Isleworth and (ii) the constituency of Feltham and Heston. [31311]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For(a) and (b), I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002, Official Report, column 293W.

  Information about the children's tax credit is not available by constituency. However, the number of families who are eligible for the CTC in London is estimated to be 475,000.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families eligible for receipt of the child tax credit have yet to claim their entitlement. [33012]
  691W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer to the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 203W.

  VAT
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many changes there have been in the scope of VAT since May 1997. [32929]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since May 1997, there have been no substantive changes to the scope of VAT, in terms of the range of goods and services which are liable to the tax. This Government have however reduced the rate of VAT on certain items, such as domestic fuel and power. Details of such changes, and of any marginal adjustments made, for example, to the scope of certain reliefs, are identified in the relevant Budget documentation.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of VAT would be if the yield were maintained but all goods and services currently exempt or zero rated were classified as being standard rated. [32863]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since sufficiently robust estimates are not available of the effect of applying VAT to exempt goods and services, it is not possible to calculate the VAT rate that would apply were they, and zero-rated items, taxed (and the overall yield maintained).

  Customs/Inland Revenue
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed by(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise at (i) 1 May 1997, (ii) 31 December 1997, (iii) 31 December 1998, (iv) 31 December 1999, (v) 31 December 2000 and (vi) at the most recent date. [32930]

  Mr. Boateng
  The numbers of staff in each Department at the appropriate dates were as follows:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Number of staff

  Full-time equivalent

  31 May 1997

  124,461

  123,634

  1 January 1998

  24,559

  23,690

  1 January 1999

  23,940

  23,086

  1 January 2000

  23,422

  22,577

  1 January 2001

  23,254

  22,436

  1 January 2002

  23,100

  22,320

  Permanent and FTA

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number of staff

  FTE

  Inland Revenue

  1 May 1997

  43,905

  9,097

  53,002

  49,727

  1 January 1998

  43,382

  9,144

  52,526

  49,234

  1 January 1999

  43,336

  9,489

  52,825

  49,409

  1 January 2000

  53,598

  12,584

  66,182

  61,778

  1 January 2001

  53,941

  13,367

  67,308

  62,763

  1 January 2002

  54,279

  14,495

  68,774

  63,991

  Valuation Office Agency

  1 May 1997

  3,983

  480

  4,463

  4,290

  1 January 1998

  3,842

  483

  4,325

  4,151

  1 January 1999

  3,608

  471

  4,079

  3,909

  1 January 2000

  3,630

  484

  4,114

  3,945

  1 January 2001

  3,512

  520

  4,032

  3,855

  1 January 2002

  3,411

  542

  3,953

  3,774

  692W

  Permanent and FTA

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number of staff

  FTE

  Total Inland Revenue and Valuation Office Agency

  1 May 1997

  47,888

  9,577

  57,465

  54,017

  1 January 1998

  47,224

  9,627

  56,851

  53,385

  1 January 1999

  46,944

  9,960

  56,904

  53,318

  1 January 2000

  57,228

  13,068

  70,296

  65,723

  1 January 2001

  57,453

  13,887

  71,340

  66,618

  1 January 2002

  57,690

  15,037

  72,727

  67,765

  Staffing figures as at 1 April and 1 October each year are provided to the Cabinet Office by both Departments and are published as part of the Civil Service manpower figures. In addition, each Department publishes an annual report (year end 31 March) that contains details of staffing figures.

  Accounting
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he has made in accounting for(a) taxes and (b) spending since May 1997; and what the impact of these changes has been. [32951]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There have been two major changes in accounting practice since 1997 that have impacted on the accounting for taxes and public spending, one in respect of national accounts and one in respect of accounting by Government Departments.

  In 1998, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) converted UK national accounts to the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95). This changed the accounting for some components of taxes and public spending. The ESA95 treatment was described in "National Accounts Concepts Sources and Methods" (ONS, 1998, ISBN 0–1 1–621062–1), chapters 5 and 21. The impact of the changes on the main public finance aggregates was quantified in the 1998 pre-Budget report (Cm 4076), paragraps B26 to B36.

  The Government introduced resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) for Government Departments with effect from 2001–02. This applies generally accepted accounting practices to the accounts and budgets of Government Departments, and replaced the previous system, which just recorded cash flows. The impact of the introduction of RAB on departmental expenditure limits was set out in Spending Review 2000 (Cm 4807), Table A7.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the economy of a fall in the value of sterling relative to(a) the US dollar, (b) the euro and (c) the yen by 10 per cent. compared with its rate at 1 January. [32865]

  Ruth Kelly
  The effects of exchange rate changes depend on the drivers of the changes, and are difficult to isolate with any confidence.

  Personal Care (VAT)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether VAT is payable on the wages element of home care provided by private sector organisations; and if he will make a statement. [32700]
  693W
  Mr. Boateng
  Personal care services provided by private businesses are VAT exempt when performed or directly supervised by qualified nurses to meet the medical needs of the client. VAT is chargeable on all other care provided commercially in the home.

  When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry lays before Parliament revised regulations governing the conduct of the private recruitment industry, Customs and Excise will introduce a VAT concession for the wages element of commercially provided home care.

  Duty-free Imports
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is Government policy to seek to achieve greater convergence between EU countries on those goods which may be purchased outside the EU and imported duty-free into each country. [32701]

  Mr. Boateng
  In general, the same rates of customs duty apply throughout the EU. Where optional reliefs from these duties are available, it is for individual member states to decide whether to introduce them.

  Capital Housing Debt
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to remove capital housing debt from local authorities in Scotland. [32089]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Scottish Executive are responsible for determining their policies in devolved areas of responsibility. The Scottish Executive announced arrangements for housing stock transfer on 18 September 2001, including arrangements for handling debt agreed with the Treasury and similar to those in England.

  Credit Statistics (Scotland)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was borrowed(a) in 2001, (b)(c) 20 and (d) 30 years ago on (i) credit cards, (ii) bank loans and (iii) mortgages in Scotland. [32484]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  £ billion

  Mortgage lending1, 2

  19713

  0.12

  19813

  0.82

  19913

  2.08

  20014,5

  5.91

  1Loans for house purchase only

  2Scotland only

  3Building society lending only

  4Lending by all mortgage lenders

  5Estimate

  Source

  Council of Mortgage Lenders/DTLR Survey of Mortgage Lenders, CML/DoE 5 per cent. Sample Survey of Building Society Mortgage Completions

  Borrowing on credit cards and through bank loans in Scotland is not currently identifiable from existing data sets. However, the Committee of Scottish Clearing Banks is currently looking at collecting statistics in these areas in the future.
  694W

  Euro
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Government have spent in making preparations for entry to the European single currency. [32527]

  Ruth Kelly
  Government spending on preparations for possible entry to the single currency is set out in the Fifth Report on Euro Preparations, published in November 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the nature of the preliminary technical work being undertaken on the five economic tests and how many officials are involved in it. [32084]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury published a note in November 2001, "Preliminary and Technical Work to Prepare for the Assessment of the Five Tests for UK Membership of the Single currency", which addressed the issues of content and timing of the preliminary and technical work to prepare for the assessment of the five economic tests for UK membership of the single currency. A copy can be found in the Library of the House. Regarding the second part of the question, I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 373W.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been introduced to assist businesses that want to trade in euros; and how much they have cost. [32528]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the information provided to UK businesses and expenditure on business euro preparations were set out in the Treasury's fifth report on euro preparations, published on 4 November, copies of which were deposited in the Library of the House.

  Prospectus Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in negotiations on the proposed prospectus directive to minimise the disclosure costs of issuers. [32686]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK's objective is to secure a prospectus directive that will strike a more appropriate balance between the need to keep the cost of raising capital as low as possible and to protect the interests of investors.

  I am encouraged by both the direction that negotiations in council working group are taking, and the work of the European Parliament to date.

  However, all parts of the proposed prospectus directive are still subject to further negotiation.

  Inland Revenue (Internet Access)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when officers of Inland Revenue in the(a) Special Compliance Office Bristol, (b) Large Business Office Bristol and (c) Business Tax Group of International Division were first provided with personal direct access to the Internet from their desk workstations. [32722]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  (a)There is only one person in Special Compliance Office Bristol with personal direct access to the internet from their desktop. That access was provided on 27 April 2001.
  695W
  (b)There is nobody in Large Business Office Bristol with personal direct access to the internet from the desktop.

  (c)Twenty members of the Business Tax Group of International Division were provided with personal direct access to the internet from their desktops. That access was provided on 10 September 2001.

  Private Medical Insurance (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many residents in the Buckingham constituency have private medical insurance. [24868]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 4 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of residents in the Buckingham constituency with private medical insurance. (24868)

  Estimated resident population mid-2000 for Government office regions of England and country totals for Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland

  Thousand

  Males

  Females

  Area

  60–64

  65–74

  75–79

  80 and over

  60–64

  65–74

  75–79

  80 and over

  England

  North East

  63.5

  106.6

  36.8

  29.6

  68.1

  124.1

  52.5

  67.4

  North West

  167.8

  265.7

  93.3

  82.3

  175.4

  309.2

  136.7

  188.6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  121.9

  195.2

  71.8

  63.8

  127.7

  227.2

  100.2

  141.0

  East Midlands

  102.6

  168.5

  62.5

  55.3

  104.6

  187.8

  83.9

  112.9

  West Midlands

  132.5

  212.8

  74.5

  65.4

  134.5

  237.7

  105.6

  141.6

  East

  130.9

  218.1

  79.1

  76.3

  134.4

  242.5

  108.5

  151.6

  London

  144.3

  219.9

  78.1

  78.9

  149.7

  249.4

  111.0

  170.8

  South East

  189.6

  310.2

  114.0

  115.9

  196.6

  354.5

  162.9

  243.9

  South West

  124.4

  214.0

  83.0

  83.8

  129.6

  244.3

  116.6

  171.7

  Wales

  75.1

  124.9

  46.1

  41.0

  77.5

  142.9

  64.6

  88.9

  Scotland

  122.7

  196.7

  65.3

  56.1

  136.6

  243.0

  99.0

  127.0

  Northern Ireland

  35.2

  54.4

  18.6

  16.5

  38.1

  67.5

  28.0

  36.1

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, General Register Office Scotland and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many women aged (i) 60 to 64, (ii) 65 to 74, (iii) 75 to 79 and (iv) 80 years or above(a) are married, (b) are widowed, (c) are divorced and (d) have never been married. [32765]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 14 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning the number of women 60 years of age and over by their marital status. I am replying in his absence. (32765)
  The table gives the requested information.
  696W
  The latest available information is from the 1995 General Household Survey. Because this is a survey based on a sample of the population, it can only provide information in percentage terms, and only down to Government Office Region level, not by parliamentary constituency.
  In 1995 18 per cent. of people (of all ages) had private medical insurance cover in the South East Government Office region (which includes Buckinghamshire). The figure for Great Britain was 9 per cent.

  Demography
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) men and (b) women aged (i) 60 to 64, (ii) 65 to 74, (iii) 75 to 79 and (iv) 80 years or above, in each region of the UK. [32766]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 14 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning the number of men and women in each region of the UK. I am replying in his absence. (32766)
  The requested information is provided in the attached table. These data are provided for the Government Office Regions (GORs) of England and for Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

  The mid 2000 marital status estimates for females in Great Britain

  Thousand

  0–64

  65–74

  75–79

  80 and over

  Single

  69.1

  150.1

  79.6

  140.5

  Married

  1,017.1

  1,464.1

  422.6

  286.5

  Windowed

  193.0

  765.2

  588.6

  1,142.7

  Divorced

  155.5

  183.3

  50.8

  35.8

  Total

  1,434.7

  2,562.6

  1,141.6

  1,605.6

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics and the General Register Office for Scotland

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the record kept under Clause 9 of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers of contacts between his special advisers and the news media since September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [32509]
  697W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 31 October 2002,Official Report, columns 741–42W.

  Earnings Statistics (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average earnings were for(a) men and (b) women working in the Greater London area at the latest available date. [32120]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 January 2002 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on average pay in Greater London. I am replying in his absence. (32120)
  New Earnings Survey (NES) provides earnings data for full-time employees on adult rates of pay. In April 2001, the latest date for which figures are available, estimates of the average weekly pay in the Greater London Government Office Region are £667.70 for men and £483.10 for women.

  Public Spending
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the IMF to ensure that public spending targets account for the need to finance free basic education in developing countries. [31673]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK has been at the forefront of encouraging the IMF to reform their medium term programmes to ensure that these deliver growth and poverty reduction. A key element of the new design of IMF programmes is the undertaking to support pro-poor budgets, which includes protecting and expanding where possible education spending. In recent years the IMF programmes have supported the introduction of free education in several countries, including Uganda and Tanzania.

  Departmental Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of Government contracts awarded to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte and Touche, (iii) Ernst & Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [33415]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information is not held centrally. Each Department is responsible for its own contracts.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the impact of stamp duty rate increases on the housing market. [32928]

  Ruth Kelly
  We regularly review the state of the housing market, bearing in mind all the factors which have an impact on it.

  Enron
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that the report 698W
  prepared by Arthur Andersen accountants on the private finance initiative will not be considered by the Government until the completion of the US Senate Committee investigation into Enron. [33417]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This report was published by the Government in January 2000.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department in each of the last four years. [27900]

  Ruth Kelly
  The expenditure on(a) ministerial cars and drivers was addressed in the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 30 January 2002, Official Report, columns 405–06W.

  Expenditure on taxis for the Treasury for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02 (inclusive) is as follows.

  Taxis

  £

  1998–99 outturn

  148,657

  1999–2000 outturn

  123,015

  2000–01 outturn

  143,048

  2001–02 year to date

  89,800

  Railtrack
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which section of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information he withholds information on consultations on draft legislation prepared by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to put Railtrack into administration. [29294]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A railway administration order was made in respect of Railtrack plc under the provisions of the Railways Act 1993. No extra legislation was necessary to put the company into administration.

  There is no obligation to disclose confidential communications between Departments, in accordance with Exemption 2 (internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31047]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are currently two Treasury PFI projects: the Treasury Building project and the Metropolitan Telephone Service (MTS) project, which is the responsibility of the Office of Government Commerce.
  699W
  Fees paid to eight firms of professional advisers to the Treasury on the refurbishment between the start of the project in 1995 and financial close of the deal in May 2000 amounted to £2.637 million. Details on numbers of consultants employed and the number of days billed for each one could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There has been no expenditure under the MTS project on PFI consultants in the last four years.

  It is important that Departments develop their own internal sources of professional advice to reduce reliance on expensive external consultants. Where external advice is required Departments should take account of the guidance in Treasury Taskforce Technical Note No. 3 on How to Appoint and Manage Advisers, a copy of which is available on the Office of Government Commerce website www.ogc.gsi.gov.uk.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2002,Official Report, column 522W, on private finance initiative projects, when the revised guidance from the Office of Government Commerce on the standardisation of PFI contracts will be published. [32067]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The private sector has been asked to comment on the draft revised general guidance on Standardisation of PR Contracts, which has been placed on the websites of the Office of Government Commerce and Partnerships UK. Responses have been requested by 15 February. These will be considered by the Office of Government Commerce drawing on the advice of Partnerships UK, and there will then be a period of consultation with interested parties in the public and private sectors. Publication of the revised guidance is expected in the spring.

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31750]

  Ruth Kelly
  The annual leave entitlements for staff below the senior civil service for the last four years is shown in the table.

  On entry

  After 10 years service

  After 20 years service

  Range A-E

  1998

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  —

  —

  —

  2000

  25

  30

  —

  2001

  125

  —

  —

  Range A-C

  1998

  25

  27

  30

  1999

  25

  28

  30

  2000

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  —

  —

  —

  Range D-E

  1998

  25

  30

  —

  1999

  25

  30

  —

  2000

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  —

  —

  —

  1 30 days after seven years service.

  700W
  The annual leave entitlement for members of the senior civil service is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days and has been so for the last four years.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 773W, on community amateur sports clubs, how many such clubs (a) in the UK and (b) in the Buckingham constituency have applied for charitable status since the Charity Commission's announcement. [32069]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Charity Commission announced on 30 November that it would recognise as charitable the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities for the playing of particular sports.
  Community amateur sports clubs are able to apply immediately. The commission has received a significant number of inquiries from sports clubs interested in taking advantage of the new charitable purpose. As clubs will have to consider the implications of charitable status, seek agreement from their members if they wish to pursue this option and make any necessary changes to their constitutions before applying for charitable status, there will inevitably be some delay before clubs are in a position to formally apply for registration. No clubs in the Buckingham constituency have yet formally applied to register.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the balance of trade between Gibraltar and the UK in the last five years. [31860]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Customs and Excise collect statistics for trade in goods with countries outside the EU from customs declarations.

  Customs do not estimate UK trade with Gibraltar. The published figures are taken from customs declarations and reflect actual trade in goods.

  The figures shown are the import and export totals for 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and the latest available for 2001 (ie to November 2001).

  £ million

  Quantity: kg

  1997

  Exports

  82,351,296

  161,733.566

  Imports

  5,679,884

  297,301

  1998

  Exports

  81,070,327

  168,491,470

  Imports

  10.075,382

  1,566,507

  1999

  Exports

  97,681,145

  215,911,465

  Imports

  12,790,871

  6,398,953

  2000

  Exports

  121,598,796

  199,572,334

  Imports

  11,547,065

  4,977,261

  20011

  Exports

  116,063,008

  107,221,109

  Imports

  13,734,599

  2,490,850

  1 January-November

  Productivity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 765W, on productivity, what steps he is taking to raise productivity growth to the level of the (a) G7 and the (b) OECD average. [32068]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's strategy for improving the UK's long-term productivity performance was set out in "Productivity in the UK: The Evidence and the Government's Approach" (November 2000). Further steps to raise productivity growth were announced in Budget 2001, "Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge" (June 2001) and the 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Engagements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library his official diary for July 2001. [32508]

  Ruth Kelly
  During July 2001 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended a number of meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, carried out duties in the House of Commons, gave several speeches and undertook a number of engagements in his constituency.

  Tobacco Revenue
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised through tobacco sales in each year since 1999. [32468]

  Mr. Boateng
  Excise Duty receipts from tobacco products were £3,695 million in 1999, £7,760 million in 2000 and £7,708 million in 2001.

  Estimated VAT receipts from the sale of tobacco products were £1,755 million in 1999 and £1,856 million in 2000. An estimate of VAT receipts from the sale of tobacco products in 2001 is not yet available.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the proportion of total receipts from income tax, VAT and national insurance paid by the top(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent. and (c) 10 per cent. of tax payers in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 2000–01. [26217]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The available information is given in the table. It is not possible to estimate amounts of VAT paid by taxpayers in different parts of the distribution.

  Proportions of total income tax and national insurance contributions paid by percentiles of the distribution

  Income tax

  National insurance contributions

  1997–98

  Top 1 per cent.

  19

  2

  Top 5 per cent.

  37

  9

  Top 10 per cent.

  47

  18

  2000–01

  Top 1 per cent.

  23

  2

  Top 5 per cent.

  41

  9

  Top 10 per cent.

  51

  19

  702W

  Reputational Externalities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 15 January, Ref. 27602, on reputational externalities, for what reason he has not undertaken to place his Department's internal guidance on reputational externalities in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [28934]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury offers advice to other Departments in making appraisals, taking into account the specific circumstances of individual cases. Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information provides for the confidentiality of internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to his letter of 11 December 2001, to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, for what reason his Department used reputational externalities as a justification for the choice of discount rate recommended in "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government"; and if he will make a statement. [28933]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Reputational externalities have not been used in this way; and my letter of the 11 December does not say that they have been used in this way.

  Geoffrey Spence
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 296W, on Geoffrey Spence, if he will place a copy of Mr. Spence's (a) terms of reference, (b) terms and conditions and (c) job description in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [29691]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Mr. Spence has been appointed by Partnerships UK to provide professional advice to the Treasury on PFI and PPP and, as necessary, on current policy issues and projects. His terms and conditions are a matter for Partnerships UK.

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many of his Department's PFI contracts Arthur Andersen has been an adviser; and if he will make a statement. [31722]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Departmental Underspends
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 27W, on departmental underspends, whether he estimates that underspends will be higher in 2001–02 than in 2000–01. [32085]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Table B16 of the pre-Budget report (Cm 5318) assumes that the outturn for total Departmental Expenditure Limits will be at the planned level. A revised position will be published on total DEL outturn in the Budget.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people working in the Greater London area receive the national minimum wage. [32123]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 4 February 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of workers in Greater London who receive the National Minimum Wage (NMW). (32123)
  The estimated number of jobs in the United Kingdom with pay below NMW rates in April 2001 was 320,000. Of these 50,000 relate to 18–21 year olds and 270,000 relate to 22 year olds and over.
  The National Statistics website contains estimates for the numbers and proportions of jobs paid at below NMW rates for Government Office Regions for all persons. However, for Greater London the estimates are not available because the survey sample sizes are too small to provide reliable information. Figures are posted at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour_market/pay_and_earnings/measuring_low_pay.asp

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what his policy will be during discussions on Germany's projected budget deficit at ECOFIN on 12 February. [33185]

  Ruth Kelly
  These issues will be discussed at ECOFIN on 12 February. The process is set out in the treaty, and the regulations regarding the operation of the Stability and Growth Pact.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in each of the last four years, specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30177]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  For details of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas costing more than £500 and the annual cost of all Ministers' visits overseas since 2 May 1997, I refer the hon. Member to the answers provided by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 June 1999,Official Report, columns 196–97W, 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W and 20 July 2001, Official Report, column 467W. The Government are committed to publishing this level of information on an annual basis, and information for 2001–02 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. In view of this commitment which involves a significant amount of work and cost, the Government have no plans to widen the scope of the annual list to include junior Ministers.

  Civil Defence Grants
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the settlement for civil defence grants for 2001–02, broken down by authority. [31239]
  704W
  Mr. Leslie
  A list broken down by authority showing the amounts of civil defence grant paid to each eligible authority in England and Wales for this financial year, 2001–02, has been placed in the Library. This amounts to 90 per cent. of the approved grant. The balance will be paid in financial year 2002–03 and depends on the actual expenditure incurred in accordance with the provisions of the civil defence grant regulations.

  Terrorism (Contingency Plans)
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Government plan to consult external scientists to ensure that contingency plans for responding to a terrorist attack using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material are scientifically robust. [33648]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government's chief scientific adviser has been asked to consult on a regular basis with appropriate scientists and expert advisers to ensure that contingency plans reflect the latest scientific knowledge. He reports on a regular basis to the CBRN sub-committee chaired by the Minister of State, Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31746]

  Mr. Leslie
  Annual leave entitlements for Cabinet Office staff in grades below the senior civil service in each of the last four years have been as follows.

  Grade

  On entry

  After 10 years service

  After 20 years service

  Bands A and B2

  1998

  25

  30

  —

  1999

  25

  30

  —

  2000

  25

  30

  —

  2001

  25

  1—

  30

  Bands B1 and C

  1998

  222

  27

  30

  1999

  222

  27

  30

  2000

  25

  30

  —

  2001

  25

  1—

  30

  1 Rising by one day each year up to a maximum of 30 days

  2 25 days after one year

  The annual leave entitlement for the senior civil service is set centrally by the Cabinet Office at 30 days, and has been so for the last four years.

  Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact enactment of the Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill would have on his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29845]

  Mrs. Roche
  Civil partnership registration and associated rights and responsibilities raise a number of complex issues, which have prompted a growing debate within society and the Government are watching this debate with interest.
  705W
  These issues potentially have significant financial and administrative implications and the Government cannot commit themselves to making any changes in these areas before undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all the implications. The Government are examining the issues in detail. The Home Office will contribute to the work, which the Cabinet Office is co-ordinating.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by his Department in each of the last 24 months; and if he will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33228]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information in(a) and (b) could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  My Department follows the Government's requirement to consider the whole-life cost when making any purchasing decision. Whole-life costs take account of possible future obsolescence.

  Computer Hacking
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions in 2001 attempts were made to gain unauthorised access to computers in his Department by hacking; and of those how many were successful. [32737]

  Mr. Leslie
  During 2001 there have been no identified cases of successful attempts to gain unauthorised access to computers in my Department and its agencies by hacking.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [28006]

  Mr. Leslie
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 January 2002, c. 251]: I regret that my answer on lost or stolen items from my office was incorrect, and the Prime Minister's Office should not have been included. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer to an identical parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Buckingham is to be found on 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 26W.

  Regulatory Reform
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Government's regulatory reform action plan will be published. [33655]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government have today published their regulatory reform action plan. This fulfils a commitment given in July 2001 to produce a list of reforms, including those that could be delivered through the new streamlined process under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.

  This action plan contains 63 new proposals for regulatory reform orders. It is also wide-ranging, covering reform at all levels, across all sectors and by all routes and bringing together over 260 proposals for change that will benefit businesses, charities, the voluntary and wider public sectors, and the individual citizen.
  706W
  The Government are committed to better regulation. This involves legislating only where necessary and in the most efficient way, and deregulating and simplifying existing legislation wherever possible. The action plan brings together our proposals for deregulation and better regulation.

  The plan represents a beginning, and the Government will report on progress. In the plan, we also ask people to come forward with detailed suggestions for what more could be done to reduce bureaucratic burdens and to simplify legislation.

  Copies of the plan are available from the Libraries of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Air Traffic Control
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what preparatory work has been completed in the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; [29101]

  (2) what plans she has to hold further meetings with (a) representatives of NATS and (b) others regarding the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; [29103]

  (3) if she will make a statement about her meeting with the senior management of NATS, held on 16 January; [29104]

  (4) what requests she received from representatives of NATS asking for financial assistance for the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick (a)before 16 January and (b) at her meeting with the senior management of NATS on 16 January; [29105]

  (5) what estimate she has made of the total cost for the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; and how this figure differs from the estimated cost before the delay; [29098]

  (6) what interim targets and dates have been set for the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; [29099]

  (7) what efforts she will make to monitor the progress of the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; [29100]

  (8) what is the completion date for the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; [29102]

  (9) when she last met (a) the Secretary of State for Transport and (b) the Under Secretary of State for Transport to discuss the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick. [29097]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met with Richard Everitt, the CEO of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) on 16 January. It was a useful and constructive meeting, at which I stressed the importance of the NATS new Scottish Centre (NSC) at Prestwick to the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Everitt confirmed that NATS remained committed to a two-centre strategy, and to the construction of the NSC at Prestwick to bring it into operation in the

  707W
  2008–09 time scale. he has agreed to keep me informed over the coming months about NATS plans for implementation of the project.

  I continue to have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on a wide range of transport issues which affect Scotland, including matters relating to the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick.

  I have not received any requests from NATS asking for financial assistance for the centre at Prestwick.

  NATS have indicated that their intention is to transfer staff from the existing centre at Prestwick to the new centre when it is completed. It is not expected that the operation of the new centre will result in additional jobs; however, there will be some additional short-term employment opportunities during the construction and commissioning phase.

  Although construction of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick is being deferred, contracts for the design of the building and initial site works are in progress and will be completed. The value of these contracts is a commercial matter between NATS and the contractors. Construction of the building and the design and installation of equipment systems will be subject to a competitive procurement process, which will determine the total costs of the new centre.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by her Department in each of the last 24 months; and if she will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33239]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has not purchased any television sets in the last 24 months. There are no specific guidelines for making television purchases but Departments are required to consider the whole life cost when making any purchasing decision. Whole life costs take account of possible future obsolescence.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what proposals he has for reviewing the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and what representations he has received on its operation. [32075]

  Mr. Wills
  The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is not yet fully in force. The Lord Chancellor set out his proposals for the implementation of the Act in his report to Parliament in November 2000. When the Act is in operation, it is for the Information Commissioner to draw to the Government's attention any changes to the Act she wishes to see, in her annual statutory report to Parliament.

  As the Act is not yet fully in force, no representations have been received on its operation.
  708W

  IT Consultants
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how much his Department spent on IT consultants in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. [32050]

  Mr. Wills
  Prior to 1995–96 information was not held centrally. On the best information available, I can provide total expenditure for external consultants for the specified period as set out in the table, but this cannot be broken down specifically for IT consultants.

  £ million

  1992–93

  4.706

  1993–94

  2.070

  1994–95

  2.254

  Criminal Justice Policy
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what proposals he has for the reform of criminal justice policy. [32053]

  Mr. Wills
  The period of comment on Sir Robin Auld's report "Review of the Criminal Courts" closed on 31 January. The Government are now considering the recommendations in detail, including assessments of costs and benefits, and of comments received. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates his Department has made of the costs of the proposals by Lord Justice Auld for reorganisation of the criminal courts in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32715]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have taken no decisions on Sir Robin Auld's review report. The period of comment closed on 31 January. The Government are now considering the recommendations in detail, including assessments of costs and benefits. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Magistrates Courts (Merseyside)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his budget for the magistrates courts was on Merseyside in each year since 1992–93. [32052]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department provides separate grants for revenue and capital (buildings and IT) to local authorities for magistrates courts costs. Grant is paid at 80 per cent. of expenditure, with the remaining 20 per cent. met by local authorities.

  The total budget (revenue and capital in 100 per cent. terms) for magistrates courts in Merseyside by financial year is:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  9.62

  1993–94

  9.55

  1994–95

  10.25

  1995–96

  9.61

  709W

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  9.77

  1997–98

  10.04

  1998–99

  10.48

  1999–2000

  10.73

  2000–01

  10.92

  2001–02

  12.72

  2002–03

  11.28

  Merseyside magistrates courts committee was formed by the amalgamation of five separate committees in April 1999. The cost figures for years before 1999–2000 are aggregates of the budgets of the five committees which then existed in Merseyside.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about the operation of magistrates courts on Merseyside. [32051]

  Mr. Wills
  I have received no representations about the operation of the magistrates courts on Merseyside.

  Departmental Audit
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals she has for auditing the efficiency of(a) her Department and (b) the agencies for which she is responsible; and if she will make a statement. [30851]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department carries out a wide-ranging programme for auditing its efficiency. This is undertaken by a professional internal audit service which operates to Government internal audit standards and which audits risk management, control and governance in the Department and its agencies on an annual basis. The National Audit Office is the external auditor for the Department and its agencies' accounts and also conducts value for money studies.

  Census Online
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when she estimates the Census Online service will be made available to the public; and what will happen to the profits arising from Census Online. [32142]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Census Online service is currently available at 150 local centres around the country. At present effort is being concentrated on ensuring that, when the service returns to general internet access, it will be reliable. The charges for the census have been calculated on the basis of full cost recovery. Revenue generated by the operation of the service is intended to finance the set-up costs and the future digitisation of earlier census records.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the contractual arrangements are between QinetiQ and Census Online and the Public Record Office; if she will place copies of these in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [32143]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 374W.
  710W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the estimated cost is to QinetiQ of carrying out the enhancements to the 1901 Census Online project. [32305]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 374W.

  Criminal Courts Review
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many internet users have attempted to access the Public Record Office online site for the 1901 census; and if she will make a statement. [31308]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office website and the 1901 census website are two distinct services. The former is attracting an increased number of users and continues to work normally. For an estimate of the number of users attempting to access the 1901 census website, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 89W.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the results were of the evaluation undertaken by the Review of the Criminal Courts Regional Discussion Events which have taken place to date. [R] [30799]

  Mr. Wills
  At each event delegates were handed an evaluation form. The results of the answers are as follows: 93 per cent. of delegates who returned their evaluation forms believed that these events had value, 3 per cent. felt they did not and 4 per cent. abstained. 72 per cent. of these delegates felt they had enough opportunity to air their views, 24 per cent. did not and 4 per cent. abstained. 80 per cent. of delegates responding believed that the format of the event was effective, 13 per cent. felt that it was not and 7 per cent. abstained from answering. 86 per cent. of delegates who returned their forms would attend another event such as this, 11 per cent. felt they would not and 3 per cent. failed to answer. The number of returned forms varied at each event, for example, only seven forms were returned at Cambridge whereas at Birmingham 101 were returned.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many people(a) attended, (b) registered but did not attend and (c) were refused registration at each of the Review of the Criminal Courts Regional Discussion Events which have taken place to date. [R] [30800]

  Mr. Wills
  The numbers of those who attended and those who registered but did not attend are included in the table. Registration was refused only where the number booked had reached the capacity of the room. Because of the large non-attendance rate at London, "over booking" was allowed for the events in Cardiff and Manchester.

  Attended

  Did not attend

  Capacity of room

  Newcastle

  95

  13

  150

  Cambridge

  55

  5

  130

  London

  171

  129

  300

  Exeter

  59

  25

  120

  Birmingham

  144

  33

  180

  711W

  Attended

  Did not attend

  Capacity of room

  Manchester

  130

  67

  180

  Bradford

  104

  56

  180

  Cardiff

  90

  28

  110

  Total

  848

  356

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what steps she has taken to implement the recommendations of the Home Office report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People. [29880]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what action she proposes to take in response to the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People. [30846]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The report has been carefully considered within Government and by other interested groups. The Government are sympathetic to the issues raised in the report and are actively considering how to take the matter forward.

  Private Finance Initiative (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31038]

  Mr. Wills
  The total amount spent on PFI consultants over the last four years is as follows:

  1998: £836,427

  1999: £1,725,782

  2000: £1,317,391

  2001: £2,288,870.

  The total number of consultancy firms used over this period was 25. The other information requested regarding full-time equivalent consultants, billed consultancy days and the implied average cost of each consultant is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what account she is taking of the Office of Fair Trading recommendations on the appointment of Queen's Counsel in the current year's round; and if she will make a statement. [31642]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. There were no OFT recommendations on the appointment of Queen's Counsel, which is beyond the scope of OFT powers. The report did raise questions for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider, which he will do. The criteria for appointment of Queen's Counsel in the current year's round are set out in the Guide for Applicants, and 712W
  in the Guide for Consultees. The current Guides have been available by post and on the Department's website since 28 August 2001.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates have been appointed since 7 June 2001; and how many are(a) women, (b) black and (c) Asian. [31865]

  Mr. Wills
  The figures are as follows:

  988 magistrates have been appointed since 7 June 2001, of which

  (a) 463 were women

  (b) 14 were black, and

  (c) 46 were Asian.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many 17-year-old defendants were dealt with by the courts in Northern Ireland in 1998. [31398]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 1998, there were 1,008 17-year-old defendants dealt with by the courts in Northern Ireland.

  Court Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when the Court Service issued a notice concerning its policy on the declaration of "God Save the Queen"; and if she will place a copy of the notice in the Library. [29950]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Northern Ireland Court Service is the ministerial responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The declaration of "God Save the Queen" on entry to and exit from the courts by the judiciary in Northern Ireland has been discontinued for some years. Court Service staff were reminded that there should be no declaration of "God Save the Queen" when the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan was published. A formal notice to that effect dated 25 January 2002 has now been issued and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the registered providers of individual learning accounts. [28852]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: A list of registered learning providers has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason information concerning the availability of a disc containing personal details and identification numbers of individual learning account holders, given to Ministers on 21 November 2001, was not disclosed to hon. Members in the
  713W
  Westminster Hall debate on 11 December 2001; and for what reason this information was released to the Financial Times for publication on Wednesday 16 January. [29228]

  John Healey
  At the time of the debate on 11 December we believed it would adversely affect the conduct of the investigations to release this more detailed information. However, after a further five weeks we felt that it was possible to release this information without adversely affecting the investigations and the Minister did so in writing to the chair of the Select Committee in advance of the hearing on 16 January.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when an alternative scheme to the individual learning accounts will be put in place. [30359]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: We are determined to review thoroughly all aspects of the operation of the ILA scheme. During January and February we are conducting a consultation with providers, learners and other stakeholders to take their views. The results will be an important element in developing a successor scheme.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will announce a successor to the individual learning accounts scheme; and if she will make a statement. [26478]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: We are determined to review thoroughly all aspects of the operation of the ILA scheme. During January and February we are undertaking a survey to gather the views of a wide range of ILA learning providers, a sample of learning account holders and key stakeholders. The results will be an important element in developing a successor scheme.

  Pre-school and After-school Provision
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) day nurseries, (b) playgroups, (c) child minders, (d) out of schools clubs and (e) holiday schemes have been provided in the constituency of Buckingham in each year since 1997. [27769]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department collects information on day nurseries and playgroups and pre-schools defined in terms of the full day or sessional care that they provide. It does not collect information on pre-schools separately from playgroups. The Department collects information in terms of local authorities and not constituencies.

  As a result of the local government reorganisation of Buckinghamshire in April 1997, information for 1997 is not comparable with that for later years.

  The available information for Buckinghamshire local authority is shown in the following table.

  Numbers of day care providers 1 by type of provider: Buckinghamshire local authority area, 1998–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Day nurseries

  —

  20

  90

  90

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  —

  70

  200

  200

  Child minders

  1,300

  450

  1,100

  1,100

  Out of school clubs

  —

  20

  20

  20

  Holiday schemes

  —

  10

  280

  70

  714W

  Numbers of day care places1 by type of provider: Buckinghamshire local authority area, 1998–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Day nurseries

  —

  1,050

  2,430

  1,397

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  4,926

  1,820

  1,350

  4,644

  Child minders

  —

  1,792

  6,822

  6,174

  Out of school clubs

  —

  546

  210

  417

  Holiday schemes

  —

  614

  21,630

  4,156

  1 Figures have been rounded

  2 Includes those schemes exempt from registration

  Source:

  The local authority provided the data

  Figures for March 2001 for England and Government Office regions were in Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care Facilities as at 31 March 2001" which is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/ and from the Library.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of higher education entrants in 2000–01 and 2001–02(a) from Dartford and Gravesham and (b) in England were from social classes HI, IV and V. [28241]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on the social class of higher education students in the UK, covering only those who apply to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) are given in the table; data on the family background of students on postgraduate or part-time courses are not held centrally. Comparable figures on the social class of HE students from each constituency are not held centrally.

  The Government are committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent family backgrounds, and have introduced Excellence Challenge, including the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.

  UK domiciled accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK

  Year of entry

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Social class

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  I Professional

  38,800

  14

  39,700

  14

  II Intermediate

  117,700

  44

  120,800

  44

  IIIN Skilled non-manual

  37,800

  14

  38,800

  14

  IIIM Skilled manual

  44,400

  17

  48,400

  18

  IV Partly skilled

  24,200

  9

  23,100

  8

  V Unskilled

  5,500

  2

  5,600

  2

  Total known

  268,400

  100

  276,500

  100

  Unknown

  40,300

  —

  49,000

  —

  Total

  308,700

  —

  325,500

  —

  Source

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students from socio-economic classes IIIm, IV and V she estimates higher education institutions will accept by(a) 2005 and (b) 2010; whether each higher education institution will be expected to accept the same proportion; what deviation from a standard proportion will be accepted; and if she will make a statement. [31979]
  715W
  Margaret Hodge
  We are committed to widening participation in higher education, and we are raising the attainment and aspirations of young people from these social classes through our work in schools and colleges and the Excellence Challenge. As we progress towards our target to increase participation to 50 per cent. of those aged 18–30 by the end of the decade, we expect the proportion from these social classes to increase. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will be setting targets to support this objective.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her definition is of higher education. [31373]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The Act of Parliament which defines courses of higher education is the Education Reform Act 1988. Schedule 6 of the Act describes courses of higher education as:

  (a) a course for the further training of teachers or youth and community workers;

  (b) a post-graduate course (including a higher degree course);

  (c) a first degree course;

  (d) a course for the Diploma of Higher Education:

  (e) a course for the Higher National Diploma or Higher National Certificate of the Business and Technician Education Council, or the Diploma in Management Studies;

  (f) a course for the Certificate in Education;

  (g) a course in preparation for a professional examination at higher level;

  (h) a course providing education at a higher level (whether or not in preparation for an examination).

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria the Government use for determining which higher education courses qualify for meeting the university participation target of 50 per cent. of people under the age of 30 years. [31269]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The target relates to good quality HE experiences. We are therefore including all courses of one year or more, above A level and its equivalents, that lead to a qualification awarded by higher education institutions or widely recognised national awarding bodies (eg the Institute of Management).

  We are also considering including a small number of professional qualifications of less than one year's duration, for example in nursing, law, business and management. We are currently seeking advice from the QCA as to whether the nature and content of these qualifications could appropriately be classified as being of a higher education standard.

  Sixth-forms
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the transfer of responsibility for post 16 education from Coventry city council to the Learning and Skills Council; and for what reason an additional £1.5 million has been taken away from the SSA grant. [28887]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 23 January 2002)The Learning and Skills Council will begin funding LEAs for the provision delivered in their school sixth-forms from April. LEAs will continue to pass funds to schools and retain their wider responsibilities for sixth-forms.
  716W
  The overall amount of funding that we have transferred to the LSC is £1.35 billion for 2002–03. This represents our best estimate of the likely funding for school sixth-forms in that year, taking into account growth in pupil numbers and in funding per pupil. The LSC issued provisional allocations for 2002–03 to LEAs and schools in December. These include funds for both mainstream sixth-forms and for post-16 pupils with special needs. The provisional allocation for Coventry was £11.8 million, of which almost £1 million was for provision for pupils with statements of SEN.

  Data on pupil numbers and qualifications taken from the September 2001 pupil count have been used to calculate funding levels for mainstream school sixth-forms under the LSC's formula. A higher proportion of schools than originally expected are being funded under the formula. For around two-thirds of sixth-forms it generates higher levels of funding than their underpinning real terms guarantee. The pattern in Coventry is broadly in line with this national picture.

  The total amount of funding passing to an LEA from the LSC for school sixth-forms will be matched by a deduction from their Education SSA. The allocations will be confirmed shortly.

  New Schools
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the new schools built since 1997; and if she will list those granted funding to be built in the next two years. [29627]

  John Healey
  We do not hold information in the form requested. It is for local education authorities to determine the need for additional school places in the maintained sector and, where necessary, to build or support the provision of new schools. The Department makes available capital funding for new school places; many of these are provided in existing schools.

  School Places
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 30 November 2001,Official Report, column 1209W, on school places, what application her Department has received from Buckingham local education authority for capital funding for school places in each year since 1997; and what the outcome was in each case. [30083]

  John Healey
  The table shows the number of new pupil places applied for by Buckinghamshire local education authority since 1998, the earliest year for which records are readily available, the number of places the Department recognised and supported and the amount of funding that was allocated. This support reflected the need for additional numbers of school places in areas of population growth where there was no capacity in any of the schools in the surrounding area.

  Places applied for

  Places supported

  Funding allocated (£000)

  1998–99

  1,242

  1,213

  4,579

  1999–2000

  881

  847

  5,372

  2000–01

  452

  384

  2,490

  717W

  Places applied for

  Places supported

  Funding allocated (£000)

  2001–02

  342

  271

  1,822

  2002–03

  495

  495

  4,203

  Total

  3,412

  3,210

  18,466

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 712W, what the average National Grid for Learning funding has been per LEA in each year since 1997. [30123]

  John Healey
  National Grid for Learning funding through the Standards Fund began in 1998–99. Funding is allocated to LEAs by formula based on school and pupil numbers and any average would not be an accurate indication of the amount of funding allocated to each LEA. However, a notional average for National Grid for Learning allocations by LEA is:

  £ million

  1998–99

  0.680

  1999–2000

  0.700

  2000–01

  1.366

  2001–02

  1.633

  Government-supported Training
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many young people were on Government training schemes in each of the last 10 years. [30479]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: This information is published in quarterly Statistical First Releases, which are in the Library of the House. The information is also available on the world wide web. Figures for England are on the Department for Education and Skills site at http: //www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/ DB/SFR/s0310/ index.html. Government supported training is a devolved matter in Wales, and figures for Wales are on the National Assembly for Wales site at http://www.wales.gov.uk/keypubstatisticsforwalesheadline/content/postl6education/2001/hdw20011221a-e.htm.

  Sector Skills Development Agency
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the new Sector Skills Development Agency will be created. [30549]

  John Healey
  The Sector Skills Development Agency will come into existence from the beginning of April 2002. We expect to have a chair in place and other senior post holders identified by 31 March. A small support team will be in place from the beginning of April. The SSDA will have filled most posts by June 2002.

  Schools (Harwich)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been given 718W
  to (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Harwich constituency for the refurbishment of school buildings since 1997. [30983]

  John Healey
  Information is not available in the form requested. Allocations of most capital funding for schools are made at local education authority level, which will hold information about how allocations have been made at school level.

  The new deal for schools (NDS) programme was introduced in 1997, particularly to focus on refurbishing schools and also to help address the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings. The following table sets out the capital resources made available for schools in Essex under the NDS programme, including those already announced for future years. Total capital resources for schools allocated to Essex over the period 1997–98 to 2003–04 amount to £10million.

  New deal for schools: Essex

  £ million

  Allocation

  1997–98

  1.2

  1998–99

  2.6

  1999–2000

  6.2

  2000–01

  24.3

  2001–02

  14.5

  2002–03

  24.5

  2003–04

  36.7

  Total

  110.0

  School Sports Facilities
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have private sports facilities built on school grounds. [31061]

  John Healey
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have sold land to mobile phone companies to build mobile phone masts since 1997. [31062]

  John Healey
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Class Sizes (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many five, six and seven-year old children were taught in classes of more than 30 pupils in Lancashire in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [31219]

  Mr. Timms
  The total number of key stage 1 pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher in Lancashire local education authority as at January 1997 and 2001 were 17,712 and 127 respectively.

  Union Learning Fund
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the growth and development of the Union Learning Fund. [R] [31466]
  719W
  John Healey
  Trade unions play a key role in promoting the development of learning and skills in the workplace. To help them do this my Department has provided financial support through the Union Learning Fund since 1998. This year (2001–02) funding will total £7 million, rising to £9 million next year and £11 million in 2003–04.

  When it was launched, the Union Learning Fund was a new and innovative experiment, but it has now become an established part of the lifelong learning agenda. It is helping trade unions use their influence with employers, employees and others to encourage greater take up of learning at work and boost their capacity as learning organisations. It has so far benefited over 25,000 people in the workplace through a wide variety of projects ranging from tackling basic skills needs to advanced professional development. It has also led to the development of a new breed of activist, the union learning representative, and helped to establish a network of over 3,000 learning representatives nationwide.

  Union learning representatives are ideally placed to help and encourage workers to improve their skills, particularly among the very lowest skilled workers and those with literacy and numeracy problems. That is why we have included a clause in the new Employment Bill that will give statutory backing to union learning representatives. It will reinforce the invaluable role that union learning representatives are currently playing in the workplace to promote work force development and open up new training opportunities for their colleagues.

  Mature Students
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the proportion of(a) part-time and (b) full-time mature students entering higher education in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [R] [31468]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available data for 1999 and 2000 are given in the table. Corresponding data for 2001 will be available in April 2002. Latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), covering full-time first degree and HND courses only, show that 63,700 home domiciled students aged 21 or over were accepted for entry in autumn 2001, an increase of 9.5 per cent. compared to the previous year. UCAS does not cover students applying for part-time undergraduate courses.

  The Government have introduced additional financial help for student parents, the great majority of whom are mature, including a child care grant and a travel and equipment grant.

  Home domiciled undergraduate entrants 1 in the UK

  Thousand

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Full-time

  Young2

  277.4

  73

  276.1

  73

  Mature2

  103.1

  27

  103.1

  27

  Total

  380.5

  100

  379.3

  100

  720W

  Home domiciled undergraduate entrants 1 in the UK

  Thousand

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Part-time

  Young2

  23.7

  9

  24.5

  8

  Mature2

  249.1

  91

  274.7

  92

  Total

  272.8

  100

  299.2

  100

  1 Census count as at 1 December. Covers first degree, HND, HNC and all other undergraduate courses in both HE and FE institutions.

  2 Young entrants are those aged under 21, mature are those aged 21 or over.

  School Expenditure
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total expenditure per pupil was in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Westminster, (ii) Kensington and Chelsea and (iii) each region in England in (a) 1997–98, (b) 2000–01,(c) 2001–02 and (D) projected for 2002–03. [31823]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is contained in the following table.

  NIE per pupil—unit cost

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary

  1997–98

  1999–2000

  1997–98

  1999–2000

  Cash terms

  LEA

  Westminster

  2,550

  2,770

  3,120

  3,350

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,650

  2,850

  3,460

  3,650

  GOR

  North-east England

  1,640

  1,960

  2,210

  2,440

  North-west England

  1,660

  1,930

  2,340

  2,560

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,700

  1,980

  2,200

  2,500

  East midlands

  1,660

  1,940

  2,330

  2,540

  West midlands

  1,730

  2,040

  2,340

  2,580

  Eastern England

  1,720

  1,940

  2,390

  2,560

  South-east England

  1,690

  2,000

  2,320

  2,510

  South-west England

  1,660

  1,930

  2,300

  2,510

  London

  1,080

  —

  2,810

  —

  Inner London

  —

  2,700

  —

  3,360

  Outer London

  —

  2,230

  —

  2,830

  Real terms

  LEA

  Westminster

  2,740

  2,820

  3,340

  3,410

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,840

  2,900

  3,700

  3,720

  GOR

  North-east England

  1,750

  2,000

  2,370

  2,480

  North-west England

  1,780

  1,960

  2,510

  2,600

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,820

  2,020

  2,350

  2,550

  East midlands

  1,780

  1,980

  2,500

  2,580

  West midlands

  1,850

  2,080

  2,500

  2,630

  Eastern England

  1,840

  1,970

  2,560

  2,610

  South-east England

  1,810

  2,040

  2,490

  2,550

  South-west England

  1,780

  1,960

  2,460

  2,550

  London

  2,230

  —

  3,010

  —

  Inner London

  —

  2,740

  —

  3,420

  Outer London

  —

  2,270

  —

  2,880

  Notes

  1. The figures consist of NIE per pupil in pre-primary/primary schools and secondary schools in 1997–98 and 1999–2000 (the most recent year for which the Department has finalised outturn data) and are in both cash and real terms.

  2. Expenditure data are drawn from ROI (1997–98) and section 52 table 3 (1999–2000) returns. The expenditure data used to derive these unit costs cover all school based recurrent spending, including teaching and non-teaching staff salaries, school premises costs, equipment and supplies and unspent balances held by schools at the year end.
  721W
  3.Academic year pupil numbers are drawn from annual schools census data and a weighted average is taken to provide financial year estimates.

  4.All figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  5.Figures are converted from cash to real terms 2000–01 prices using the December 2001 GDP deflators.

  6.Information for 2000–01 and 2001–02 is not yet available and as a result it is not possible to arrive at a projection.

  Coalfield Areas (Educational Attainment)
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Government's strategies to raise educational attainment in present and former coalfield areas. [R] [31470]

  Mr. Timms
  We have several strategies that are helping to raise educational attainment in coalfield and other areas. Standards of literacy and numeracy in primary schools are the highest they have ever been and evidence shows that the coalfields are benefiting from these strategies although we recognise that there is still work to be done.

  We published the Schools White Paper "Achieving Success", last September, which sets out our vision for education for the years ahead. The Key Stage 3 strategy (11 to 14-year-olds) aims to build on the success at primary level but has been adapted to meet the more diverse and complex nature of the secondary curriculum.

  We have introduced floor targets so that every school, wherever it is based, will be supported to secure at least 20 per cent. of students with five good GCSEs by 2004, rising to 25 per cent. by 2006.

  Coalfield areas are also benefiting from more localised targeting with initiatives such as Excellence in Cities and Education Action Zones providing additional resources for schools serving disadvantaged areas. Coalfield areas already benefiting from these initiatives include Rotherham, St. Helens, Barnsley, Doncaster and Wigan. Matters relating to Wales, should be addressed to the Welsh assembly.

  Pupil Mobility
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she(a) has introduced and (b) plans to implement in response to the report of the Migration Research Unit into the effect of pupil mobility on (i) schools and (ii) educational attainment. [31849]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The report from the Migration Research Unit identified a number of groups of mobile pupils. In only one of these was an effect on attainment found. This was for those pupils who moved house frequently due to family break-up. The effects on schools included the need for flexible induction. Measures being introduced and that are planned for implementation include:A project with 22 schools facing challenging circumstances with high mobility to raise the attainment of mobile populations;
  Guidance on the Standards Site illustrating how schools with high mobility have effectively tackled this;
  Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes of mobile pupils through the use of unique pupil numbers.
  722W

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the instances in which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32037]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the financial year 2000–01 the number of invoices not paid within 30 days or after the agreed credit period for the DfEE and its agencies are as follows:

  Number

  DfEE

  10,420

  Employment Service

  6,197

  1 4.5 per cent. of all invoices paid

  2 3.0 per cent. of all invoices paid

  Information for the relevant non-departmental public bodies is not collected centrally.

  Teacher Training Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students failed to complete their teacher training courses; and what percentage of all the students on such courses this represented in the latest academic year for which figures are available. [32233]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers and rates of students failing to complete their teacher training courses are not collected centrally.

  The Initial Teacher Training Performance Profiles, published by the Teacher Training Agency show the number and percentage of final-year trainees at 1 December in England who subsequently failed to gain Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) at the end of their final year. Latest figures are available for academic year 1999–2000 (ITT Performance Profiles 2001).

  In 1999–2000, there were 24,654 final-year trainees in England, of whom 2,960 failed to gain QTS at the end of their final year. This represented 12 per cent. of final-year trainees.

  These figures do not take into account drop-out during earlier years of the course, which mainly applies to undergraduate courses; and may include trainees awarded QTS after the November following the trainee's final year.

  AS Levels
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many representations her Department has received since June 2001 critical of the AS Levels from(a) school governing bodies, (b) headteachers, (c) local education authorities, (d) teachers, (e) students and (f) parents. [32692]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department received a total of 694 representations from I June 2001 to date in which criticism of some aspect of AS Levels was raised. Complete data are not available on the number of representations under the various categories as requested. However, available information suggests that the majority of correspondence came from parents and students.

  Maintenance Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much grant was paid to higher education students in 1979. [32731]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The total amount paid in maintenance grants in academic year 1978–79 was £272 million (cash terms). There were 320,000 eligible higher education students, which equates to an average maintenance grant of £850 per student.

  Key Stage 4
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to deregulate Key Stage 4; and if she will make a statement. [33054]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the White Paper "Schools: achieving success" we said that it would be necessary to create more space at Key Stage 4 of the National Curriculum and agreed that there is insufficient flexibility in the current system. We will shortly be publishing a consultation paper setting out more detailed proposals.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Open Skies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if it is his policy to seek to conclude a treaty between the UK and the USA on open skies before 31 January; [30538]

  (2) if a treaty between the USA and the UK on open skies covers (a) cabotage, (b)wet leasing, (c)foreign ownership and (d) fifth freedoms; and if these issues need to be resolved before the UK would agree to a treaty; [30536]

  (3) if it is his policy to seek full wet leasing rights for UK airlines in the USA before agreeing a new open skies treaty with that country; [30541]

  (4) if it is Government policy that there should be a full reciprocation of rights and privileges between the carriers of both nations before the UK concludes a treaty on open skies with the USA; [30535]

  (5) what assessment he has received on the balance of benefits to the UK economy of conceding fifth freedom access to the European market for USA airlines in return for the American authorities approval of the British Airways/American Airway alliance; [30540]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the impact on UK carriers of granting rights at (a)Stansted and (b)other UK airports to USA carriers without reciprocal rights in the USA to UK carriers; [30537]

  (7) if it is his policy to seek fifth freedom rights for UK airliners in the USA before agreeing a new open skies treaty with that country; [30542]

  (8) when the next negotiations on open skies are scheduled to take place between the USA and the UK; [30539]

  (9) if it his policy that an open skies treaty between the USA and the UK should be subject to review by the (a) European Court and (b) European Commission. [30543]
  724W
  Mr. Spellar
  Negotiations on UK/US air services, which were scheduled to resume in Washington on 28 January, were postponed when it became clear that the prospect of a large part of the UK's airline industry gaining effective access to the large US domestic market had been removed. However, we remain committed to achieving the full and genuine liberalisation of the UK/US aviation market. In pursuing this policy we shall continue to be guided by a consideration of the widest spectrum of UK consumer and economic interests.

  In negotiating air services agreements we seek to make balanced exchanges of rights. A liberalisation deal would, by definition, include more liberal traffic rights for the carriers of each side so, if granted, fifth freedom rights in a new UK/US Agreement would be available to the carriers of both sides.

  It remains Government policy to seek to persuade the US Government to open up their large domestic market to competition from UK carriers, both passenger and cargo.

  The UK has no policy that air services agreements which it concludes with the US, or indeed with any other country, should be subject to review by the European Court or the European Commission.

  Fares
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what assumptions about future fare levels the 10-year plan and the SRA strategic plan are based. [32935]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to page 26 of the SRA Strategic Plan and to page 9 of the 10-year plan background analysis document.

  East London Line
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make a further statement on the East London line. [32940]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have no immediate plans to make a further statement.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimates he has made of the availability of network capacity to run East London line trains to Croydon. [32941]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority, in taking the project forward, has determined that network capacity is available for a service to operate to Croydon.

  Central Railway
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the situation concerning the Central Railway proposal. [32957]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 17W.

  South Central
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will have executive responsibility for establishing the special purpose financing vehicle for investment in routes operated by South Central. [32932]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The terms on which any special purpose vehicle is set up, and the responsibility for doing so, are a matter for negotiation among the parties.

  Crossrail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to promote crossrail through a hybrid bill. [32946]

  Mr. Spellar
  A final decision has yet to be taken on the most appropriate method for securing powers for any crossrail scheme.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the promoters of crossrail will be able to bring forward and construct the scheme earlier than envisaged in the SRA strategic plan; and if he will provide public financial support for such a move. [32947]

  Mr. Spellar
  As the plan states, options for taking forward the scheme are being developed by the SRA/TfL joint venture Cross London Rail Links Ltd. Timing of the next stages will depend on the outcome of that work, and construction of a scheme will depend upon the necessary powers being obtained.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met the Mayor of London to discuss crossrail. [32948]

  Mr. Spellar
  Various crossrail issues were on the agenda when I chaired the most recent meeting of the High-Level London Rail Group on 17 January. The Mayor of London and the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority are co-members of the group.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what status the Crossrail project has within the Strategic Rail Authority plans up to 2010; and if he will make a statement. [30737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA's Strategic Plan makes it clear that a number of major schemes, including Crossrail, are being explored further in terms of feasibility and value for money. The authority has underlined its commitment to Crossrail by providing half of the £154 million funding for the new company which is currently undertaking development work.

  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to allow mixed use of lines by heavy and light rail services on routes, in a similar way to the Tyne and Wear Metro extension. [33406]

  Mr. Spellar
  Mixed use of lines by heavy and light rail services is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Any proposal for dual use would entail a726W
  fundamental change to the safety case of the infrastructure operator. The HSE would consider an application on that basis. For example, HSE approval of the Tyne and Wear Metro extension was dependent on all signals on the Metro extension being fitted with an automatic train protection system similar to those fitted to the rest of this stretch of the mainline network.

  Rail Strategic Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002, Ref 30261,Official Report, column 324W, if he will list the infrastructure projects that will not require some funding through special purpose vehicles. [33405]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This will be a matter for consideration case by case.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions where the development work on the 10-year plan identified 23 per cent. spare capacity on the rail network in forming its assumptions for future growth potential. [33394]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to footnote 7 on page 10 of the 10-year plan background analysis document.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of unallocated financial reserves in the total allocation for the 10-year plan on(a) 14 January and (b) 30 January. [32960]

  Mr. Spellar
  The level of the unallocated provision in the total allocation for the 10-year plan on both(a) 14 January 2002 and (b) 30 January 2002 was £6.7 billion.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 321W, ref 31540, what proportion of the funding relates to each of (i), (ii) and (iii). [33390]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 175W, with (i) relating to the transfer from the unallocated budget in the 10-year plan while (ii) and (iii) relate to the funding additional to the original 10-year plan.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 321W, ref 31541, if he will make a statement on the timetable required to achieve the target dates for the complete opening of the East London line as outlined in the SRA strategic plan. [33392]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 866W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002,Official Report,

  727W
  column 320W, ref 26291, what took place between the meeting with the Chairman of Railtrack and 6 August that led him to appoint advisers. [33413]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials met with Railtrack's financial advisers between these two dates.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 321W, ref 31540, if he will make a statement on the cost implications of the October 2000 final conclusions of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of access charges. [33391]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to Appendix D of the October 2000 final conclusions.

  Multi-modal Studies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated cost is of multi-modal studies initiated since 1997. [32958]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimated cost of the programme of multi-modal studies is £30 million excluding VAT.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in which financial years the additional finance for the railways announced on 29 January will be allocated and spent. [32961]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The profile of the £33.5 billion of Government funding for the railways was set out in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 871–72W. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 175W, setting out where this increase in funding is to come from.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what means he has set a target figure for private investment in rail under the 10 year plan. [32953]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 53 and 54 of the 10-year plan background analysis document.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional projects he will bring forward following the additional finance for the railways announced on 29 January. [32962]

  Mr. Spellar
  The £4.5 billion increase in public funding has been factored into the prioritised investment programme set out in the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 872W, what the annual public investment in railways was in each year since 1978–79, calculated on the same basis.
  728W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to Table 4.2 of the Strategic Rail Authority's quarterly national Rail Trends bulletin, and for years before 1986–87 to the British Rail annual report and accounts.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the PPP scheme for London Underground will deliver additional capacity at a faster rate than projected passenger growth. [32933]

  Mr. Spellar
  The modernisation plans have been designed to eliminate London Underground's massive investment backlog and ensure that the existing infrastructure is brought up to, and maintained at, modern standards, both now and in the future.

  At the same time the plans will deliver improved waiting times, journey times and crowding levels on all underground lines, which will result in increased passenger capacity.

  Against this background London Underground believe that capacity increases should keep pace with likely forecast increases in demand.

  Investment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total public sector investment in transport was between 1987 and 1997; and what the figure is in 2002 prices. [32954]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to Table 4.2 of the Strategic Rail Authority's quarterly national Rail Trends bulletin.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money was invested in the railways in each year from 1990. [27695]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to Table 4.1 of the Strategic Rail Authority's quarterly National Rail Trends bulletin for an historic series of Government support to the rail industry.

  Rail Projects
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of setting up a special purpose financing vehicle; and from what source funding will be drawn to finance the establishment of such financing vehicles for rail projects. [32931]

  Mr. Spellar
  Section 4 of the SRA Strategic Plan discusses the issues involved in developing and implementing special purpose vehicles. Funding issues will be addressed as part of this process.

  Official Engagements
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list his official engagements since 16 November 2001; and what mode of transport he used to get to engagements outside Westminster. [33059]
  729W
  Mr. Byers
  My arrangements for official travel are made in line with guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code and the accompanying guidance document "Travel by Ministers", using the most efficient and cost-effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations.

  I travelled by car to four engagements in London, in the city, Bloomsbury, Dalston and Pall Mall on 20 November, 5 December, 6 December and 11 December, and one in Newcastle on 3 December.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1018W, on the millennium dome, what advice he has received on when the holes in the lining of the two skin roof of the millennium dome will be repaired. [33389]

  Ms Keeble
  Although the holes in the inner lining of the roof of the dome did not affect the operation and effectiveness of the roof and the lining, the holes were repaired in late December 2001, while carrying out other work near the top of the dome, since this offered a cost-effective opportunity to undertake repair.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 17W, on the Millennium Dome, if he will state for each visitor to the millennium dome since 1 July whether they visited the interior of the millennium dome, indicating the length and purpose of safety training they received; and in how many cases no safety training was received; and for what reason. [33388]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Central Line
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what feasibility study has been carried out into the construction of a new Central line station at Bishopsgate; and what conclusion that study reached. [32942]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for London Underground, who advise that no business case could be made for this option. The cost was then estimated at around £50 million. The benefits of a station for users in the Bishopsgate area were largely outweighed by the time penalty which would have resulted for users travelling through.

  Satellite Television Dishes
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 20W, on satellite television dishes, if he will make a statement on the process by which he will review planning regulations relating to satellite terminals to determine how current rules could be relaxed to facilitate broadband deployment; and when he plans to announce the result of the review. [33387]
  730W
  Ms Keeble
  As indicated in our Broadband Strategy, published on 3 December 2001, we shall review planning regulations relating to satellite terminals to determine how current rules could be relaxed to facilitate broadband deployment, while continuing to minimise the environmental and visual impact of residential satellite terminals.

  We are currently considering the process by which the review will be taken forward.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the golden jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the golden jubilee. [33250]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and other Ministers in his Department will fully support the golden jubilee celebrations, attending official events as invited. The Department has played a full role in supporting the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in making suitable preparations for the golden jubilee programme.

  Government Expenditure (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total Government expenditure in each London borough(a) was in each of the past five years and (b) is planned for 2002–03, broken down into (i) Revenue Support Order Standard spending assessment, (ii) education special projects, (iii) education capital spending, (iv) housing capital spending, (v) Single Regeneration Budget and (vi) crime prevention. [28084]

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

  Rail Delays
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost to business of rail delays in each of the past five years. [28531]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department has made no such estimate.

  Housing (Birmingham)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the change in annual revenue available for financing investment in Birmingham's council housing if stock transfer goes ahead; and what assumptions he has made in calculating this figure. [30363]

  Ms Keeble
  This is a matter for Birmingham city council to determine as part of its assessment of investment options. Its 2001 Housing Revenue Account Business Plan suggests that there is a funding shortfall over the 30 year life of the plan of £351 million. The current housing transfer proposal meets the investment needs in full.

  Rail Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) location and (b) line where temporary speed restrictions are in force on the railway. [31027]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for Railtrack.

  Social Housing
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what entitlement there is to social housing for British citizens leaving Zimbabwe because of the internal situation in that country. [31192]

  Ms Keeble
  British citizens returning to the UK from overseas have the same entitlement to local authority housing as citizens already resident provided they are habitually resident in the Common Travel Area (CTA), that is, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Unless resuming a previous period of habitual residence within the CTA, they would need to demonstrate, among other things, that their future centre of interest lay in the UK in order to establish habitual residence. Some local housing authorities currently set additional qualifying criteria.

  British citizens returning to the UK from overseas are entitled to apply for social housing held by other registered social landlords (housing associations). They are also eligible to seek assistance from social services authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989, if necessary.

  Concessionary Coach Travel
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which coach companies have agreed to participate in the national concessionary coach travel scheme for pensioners. [31713]

  Ms Keeble
  As my hon. Friend will know from my written answer of 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 725W, my Department is currently discussing with representatives of the coach industry implementation of the proposal that concessionary fares for older and disabled passengers should be offered on scheduled long distance coach services in return for those services becoming eligible for fuel duty rebate.

  We aim to complete these discussions as soon as possible with the intention, as previously announced, of bringing forward regulations during 2002–03 to implement this proposal. Until details are finalized,I would not expect any company to confirm participation in these new arrangements. However, my expectation is that the scheme will involve the majority of, if not all, relevant services.

  Train Protection Systems
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the(a) lives that would be saved and (b) track worker lives lost over 10 years by the alternative train protection systems under consideration; and if he will give the (i) capital and (ii) running costs of each system. [32074]
  732W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A steering group chaired by the Strategic Rail Authority and Railway Safety is presently evaluating options for the extension of automatic train protection systems and their costs.

  Local Authority Housing (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was(a) the actual and (b) percentage change in the number of council and RSL homes available to let between 1997–98 and 2000–01 in each local authority in London. [31851]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of properties owned by local authorities and registered social landlords which were reported as being vacant and available for letting in each London borough at the start of each year was as follows.

  [Local authority and registered social landlord "management vacant"1 dwellings

  As at end of year

  1997–98

  2000–01

  Change Number

  change Percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  510

  382

  -128

  -25

  Barnet

  217

  172

  -45

  -21

  Bexley

  187

  73

  -114

  -61

  Brent

  270

  188

  -82

  -30

  Bromley

  207

  274

  67

  32

  Camden

  364

  192

  -172

  -47

  City of London

  14

  11

  -3

  -21

  Croydon

  256

  201

  -55

  -21

  Ealing

  181

  134

  -47

  -26

  Enfield

  243

  178

  -65

  -27

  Greenwich

  437

  204

  -233

  -53

  Hackney

  546

  490

  -56

  -10

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  287

  210

  -77

  -27

  Haringey

  369

  184

  -185

  -50

  Harrow

  70

  80

  10

  14

  Havering

  200

  247

  47

  24

  Hillingdon

  122

  119

  -3

  -2

  Hounslow

  160

  129

  -31

  -19

  Islington

  770

  290

  -480

  -62

  Kensington and Chelsea

  216

  154

  -62

  -29

  Kingston upon Thames

  80

  93

  13

  16

  Lambeth

  572

  403

  -169

  -30

  Lewisham

  367

  248

  -119

  -32

  Merton

  83

  71

  -12

  -14

  Newham

  473

  299

  -174

  -37

  Redbridge

  98

  192

  94

  96

  Richmond upon Thames

  149

  87

  -62

  -42

  Southwark

  601

  408

  -193

  -32

  Sutton

  107

  52

  -55

  -51

  Tower Hamlets

  479

  399

  -80

  -17

  Waltham Forest

  283

  206

  -77

  -27

  Wandsworth

  296

  245

  -51

  -17

  Westminster

  354

  196

  -158

  -45

  London total

  9,568

  6,811

  -2,757

  -29

  1 Management vacants are those available for letting immediately, or after completion of only minor repairs.

  Source:

  DTLR annual Housing Investment Programme and Housing Corporation RS returns

  There will always be a certain level of empty properties for operational reasons, including those vacant for very short periods between tenants.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many public appointments he has made since 7 June 2001; and if he will list the names of the persons appointed. [31861]
  733W
  Ms Keeble
  DTLR Ministers made 20 appointments and 17 reappointments between 7 June 2001 and 31 December 2001 to its non-departmental public bodies. These were:

  Non-departmental public bodies

  Appointments

  Timothy Corner1

  Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate

  Hazel Duffy1

  Anthony Prior1

  Gill Richardson1

  Richard Bowker

  Commission for Integrated Transport

  Mike Hodgkinson

  Sir Roy McNulty

  Baroness Scott

  Stephen Richards

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  John Bowen2

  Audit Commission

  Victor Benjamin

  Commission for the New Towns and English Partnerships

  Janet Putman

  Housing Action Trust, Castle Vale

  Geraldine Huka

  Housing Corporation

  Richard Bowker

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Liane Farrier

  Rent Assessment Panel, Southern

  Jane Perrett

  Traffic Area, North Eastern

  Jane Perrett

  Traffic Area, North Western

  David Ibbs

  Valuation Tribunal, West Midlands West

  Sir Roy McNulty

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Helen Simpson

  Reappointments

  Charlie Watson

  Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate

  Kenneth George

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Judith Curson2

  Audit Commission

  Yvonne Hutchinson

  Housing Corporation

  Andrew Winckler

  Lew Adams

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Pen Kent

  David Quarmby

  Maldwyn Chapman

  Rent Assessment Panel, London

  Donald Perry Cooke

  Rent Assessment Panel, Southern

  Patrick Mulvenna

  Traffic Area, North East

  Patrick Mulvenna

  Traffic Area, North West

  Richard McFarlane

  Traffic Area, Scottish

  Alan Bourlet

  Traffic Area, West Midland and Wales

  Alan Jenkins

  Alan Maddrell

  Colin Senior

  Civil Aviation Authority

  1 These appointments are made jointly with the First Minister for Wales

  2These appointments are made jointly with the Secretaries of State for Health and Wales

  Shipping (Safety)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures have been introduced since 1997 to improve the safety of seamen involved in merchant shipping and fishing. [31710]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The United Kingdom is a signatory to all international maritime Conventions, a number of which have been updated since 1997 to enhance the safety of seafarers. In particular we will have fully met our international obligations with respect to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 as amended in 1995, by the date of its implementation on 1 February 2002. The Convention requirements will apply to all officers and crew serving on UK registered merchant ships and includes the introduction of mandatory safety and up-grade training for certificate of service holders and fishermen serving on certain categories of merchant ships.

  Further, the United kingdom has fully participated in the development of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
  734W
  Fishing Vessel Personnel, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is closely liaising with the fishing industry with respect to implementation.

  Additionally a joint UK/EU funded programme for safety training for fishermen was introduced on 1 April 2001. This programme will run for three years and introduces a 'safety awareness course' as an additional requirement to the Fishing Vessels (Safety Training) Regulations 1989 and allocates funding for this and other basic training.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to strengthen the rules on flags of convenience. [31711]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our primary concern is with the safety of those who crew and travel on ships, and with the protection of the marine environment. Analysis suggests that some open registers have a better safety and environmental performance than some of the more traditional maritime flags. We are working with like-minded states within the International Maritime Organisation, including the more reform-minded open registers, to raise the level of flag state performance. The wider shipping industry is also making a helpful contribution within the context of the international Quality Shipping Campaign.

  Marine Industry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the importance of the marine industry; and what support the Government have provided. [31712]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Britain is a natural maritime nation, so shipping is vitally important to us. 95 per cent. of our trade by weight arrives or leaves by sea, and the UK shipping industry is one of our biggest service-sector exporters. The UK industry was, however, in decline until we introduced our new shipping policy. A central element of our new policy is the tonnage tax, which brings certainty and clarity about tax liabilities, which are related to the tonnage of the ship operated rather than to actual profits made. Shipping companies are not obliged to enter the tonnage tax regime or to register their ships in the UK, but the new climate created by the tonnage tax, together with reforms at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, has helped to bring about significant increases in the UK registered fleet.

  A key feature of the tonnage tax, unique to the UK, is a minimum training obligation. This requires each shipping company opting for the tonnage tax to recruit and train one officer trainee each year for every 15 officer posts in its fleet and also give consideration to employment and training opportunities for ratings. The Government provide financial support for seafarer training through the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme. Following a review of SMarT in autumn/winter 2000 and the receipt of EU State Aid clearance, additional courses will be included in the scheme and levels of funding will be increased.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of the proportion of motorists who exceeded the speed limit in 2001. [31677]
  735W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department monitors traffic speeds and traffic levels at about 130 sites on different types of road throughout Great Britain. The information comes from automatic traffic counters, which are generally situated away from junctions, hills or sharp bends, at locations where traffic is likely to be free flowing. Thus in principle they provide information on the speeds at which drivers choose to travel when their behaviour is not constrained by congestion or other road conditions.

  Results are published annually. The latest available results relate to 2000 and were published in 'Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain: 2000', in July 2001. A copy is in the House of Commons Library. Results for 2001 will be published when they are ready later this year.

  Merchant Ships' Officers
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action the Government plan to improve recruitment and retention of merchant ships' officers. [32128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Recruitment and retention are matters for the individual shipping companies themselves. There are Government measures, however, to assist and encourage the training and employment of British seafarers. We provide financial support for seafarer training through the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme. Following a review of SMarT in autumn/winter 2000 and the receipt of EU State Aid clearance, additional courses will be included in the scheme and levels of funding will be increased. We introduced the Tonnage Tax option as part of the Finance Act 2000, a key feature of which is a minimum training obligation. This feature is unique to the UK, and requires each shipping company opting for the tonnage tax to recruit and train one officer trainee each year for every 15 officer posts in its fleet and also give consideration to employment and training opportunities for ratings.

  Ordnance Survey
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of Ordnance Survey's progress in facilitating the work of Government by collaboration with other data providers. [32609]

  Ms Keeble
  A specific assessment has not been made of Ordnance Survey's progress in facilitating the work of government by collaboration with other data providers. However, it is clear that a number of initiatives by Ordnance Survey in recent years has increased other data providers' input to the national topographic database.

  One initiative has been the CODES project, Collection of Data from External Sources, where data from architects, house builders and construction companies has been taken into the database. Commercial terms have been agreed for the use of these data such that Ordnance Survey costs have reduced and customers in both the public and private sectors have benefited from more up-to-date mapping being available sooner. The inclusion of this type of data will increase further in the coming months.

  In addition, Ordnance Survey has developed its policies on working with data providers following responses to Information Paper 13/1999 'Joined-up geography for the new millennium' and Consultation paper 1/2000 'Digital
  736W
  National Framework'. Both of these documents are within the public domain and can be found on the Ordnance Survey website.

  The launch of OS MasterMap in November 2001, with its system of unique referencing for every individual map feature, provides new opportunities for data providers and customers to link their own information to Ordnance Survey data. Ordnance Survey actively promotes the benefits of such data association and integration among its customers and partners. Some additional layers of OS MasterMap are already being taken forward in collaboration with other data providers.

  The continued growth of licensed partners and their development of new and innovative products is at the heart of Ordnance Survey's business model. These products draw on Ordnance Survey's own data and data from other providers.

  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what operations Ordnance Survey carries out in partnerships with private sector bodies; and if he will make a statement. [32608]

  Ms Keeble
  Ordnance Survey works with a range of private sector bodies in support of the delivery of its products and services. A wide range of activities are currently conducted in conjunction with the private sector including aerial photography, cyclical revision and the IT infrastructure.

  Ordnance Survey is in the process of negotiating a new long-term strategic agreement, Contract 2002, with a small group of private sector organisations. This agreement will operate in the spirit of partnership to deliver urban and rural cyclical revision work and other associated data collection activities.

  All such commercial agreements are regarded by both Ordnance Survey and our partners as being strictly commercial in confidence. However, it would be both inappropriate and a breach of confidentiality publicly to disclose details of any of these arrangements.

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to allow representation of transport users on passenger transport authorities. [32171]

  Ms Keeble
  Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs) are formally composed of elected members from the relevant metropolitan district councils, as set out in primary legislation. I believe that PTAs have a good record of consulting passengers and their representatives, and therefore have no plans to change current arrangements.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on levels of remuneration of PTA members. [32154]

  Ms Keeble
  Passenger Transport Authorities are able to pay allowances to their members under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Regulations under these acts provide that it is for each local authority to decide its scheme and
  737W
  the amounts to be paid under that scheme. These provisions apply to joint authorities such as Passenger Transport Authorities. The amounts of remuneration to PTA members under such schemes are therefore matters for local determination.

  SRA Spending
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of Strategic Rail Authority spending will be made in(a) London, (b) the south-east of England and (c) Yorkshire and Humber in the next 10 years. [32096]

  Mr. Spellar
  Each individual rail project and improvements negotiated through franchise agreements will usually benefit more than one part of Britain. The Strategic Rail Authority has therefore not attempted to break down its planned expenditure on a regional basis.

  Bellwin Scheme
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will modify the Bellwin scheme to allow unitary authorities to recoup costs incurred by flood damage. [32099]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 already allows payment of Bellwin grant to any local authority that satisfies the conditions. Local authorities specified in the Act include county councils, district councils and London borough councils. This definition covers unitary authorities.

  Integrated Ticketing/Transport Information
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 534W, on totaljourney.com, what assessments he has made of the impact of the decision to cease operation of the site on the delivery of targets for integrated ticketing and transport information. [32415]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Totaljourney.com made a valuable contribution to integrated ticketing and transport information by offering both rail and air tickets. There are currently other websites offering similar services but none which exactly replicate Totaljourney.com. In the longer term, Transport Direct will be introduced and will offer information and the ability to buy a ticket on all modes of transport. We are working with operators and local authorities to deliver this. The demise of Totaljourney.com is not expected to delay Transport Direct.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 529W, if he will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish on the Strategic Rail Authority website the monthly punctuality of train operating companies. [32464]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA publishes twice a year a bulletin (On Track) which includes information on the performance of each franchise operator. This bulletin is placed in the Library and on the SRA website.
  738W

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many applications for planning permission for mobile phone masts were made in South Tyneside; and how many mobile phone masts were erected in South Tyneside in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [32091]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not held centrally. I understand from information held by the local planning authority that South Tyneside council received 26 planning applications for the construction of mobile phone masts within its administrative area during the three year period 1999–2001: one in 1999,11 in 2000 and 14 in 2001. 12 of these applications received planning permission. As a result of these decisions six masts were built during this period, four in 2000 and two in 2001.

  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) bridges and (b) tunnels in the United Kingdom subject to tolls; and what is the rate payable at each toll. [32900]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions only has policy responsibility for tolled bridges and tunnels in England. My hon. Friend should contact the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales for information about tolled undertakings within their jurisdiction.

  Following is a list of statutory tolled bridges and tunnels. Toll rates at each of these crossings often vary based on the classification of vehicle using the particular crossing; therefore, for simplicity the list only shows the tolls charged for motorcars and large goods vehicles:

  £

  Undertaking

  Motorcar

  Large goods vehicle

  Aldwark Bridge1

  0.15

  0.80

  Clifton Suspension Bridge1

  0.20

  0.20

  Dartford Crossings1

  1.00

  2.90

  Dunham Bridge1

  0.20

  0.40

  Humber Bridge1

  2.40

  9.60 to 16.10

  Itchen Bridge1

  0.60

  1.00 to 25.00

  Mersey Tunnels1

  1.20

  2.40 to 4.80

  Rixton and Warburton Bridge1

  0.12

  0.12

  Severn Bridges2

  4.40

  13.30

  Shrewsbury (Kingsland) Bridge1

  0.10

  0.10

  Swinford Bridge1

  0.05

  0.20

  Tamar Bridge2

  1.00

  2.50 to 5.50

  Tyne Tunnel1

  1.00

  1.20

  Whitchurch Bridge1

  0.08

  0.50

  Whitney on Wye Bridge1

  0.50

  1.00

  1 Each way

  1 One way

  There are also a number of unregulated private bridges where a toll is charged for the right to cross private land. A complete list of these undertakings is not available.

  Marine Accidents Investigation Board
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the(a) average time and (b) maximum permitted time taken to complete an investigation by the Marine Accidents Investigation Board in the last five years. [32198]
  739W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch is required by the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999 to cause a report of an investigation into an accident to be made publicly available in the shortest time possible. The target time for publishing a report is nine months. The average time taken to complete an investigation and publish reports in the past five years has been 9.8 months. There is no maximum permitted time.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the report by the Marine Accidents Investigation Board into the sinking of the Solway Harvester. [32199]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Subject to there being no unforeseen last minute delay, the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch intends to publish its report of the sinking of the Solway Harvester during the last week in February 2002.

  Mobile Phones (Car Drivers)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department has received on the banning of mobile phone use by car drivers. [32248]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department regularly receives representations from the public and from Members of Parliament about banning the use of mobile phones use by drivers.

  Community Transport Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 202W, on community transport schemes, what sources of finance will be available to sustain community transport schemes when the Rural Bus Challenge scheme is ended. [32861]

  Ms Keeble
  Current spending plans provide for at least two further annual Rural Bus Challenge competitions. However, it was never envisaged that the Rural Bus Challenge scheme would provide funding for particular projects on a permanent basis.

  In addition to the possibility of further funding from an authority's existing Rural Bus Subsidy Grant allocation, which I mentioned in my previous answer, local authorities have powers to provide continuing support from their own resources for projects which meet a public transport need which would not otherwise be met. Authorities also have discretion to use capital funding allocated by my Department for small scale integrated transport measures to provide capital support for community transport projects, in line with the priorities in their local transport plans.

  Funding is also available for community transport, and other, projects in rural areas through the Rural Transport Partnership and Parish Transport Grant schemes.

  Planning Appeals
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has 740W
  completed his review of the effectiveness of the changes to the planning appeal procedures implemented on 1 August 2000: and if he will make a statement. [33838]

  Ms Keeble
  Revised procedures were introduced on 1 August 2000 to improve the handling of planning appeals by inquiry, hearing, and written representations to streamline the process and make the arrangements fairer and more transparent. When launching the new arrangements we indicated that their operation would be monitored and reviewed after a year.

  We have now completed the review in conjunction with the Planning Inspectorate and a wide range of stakeholders, including appellants, local planning authorities, planning agents, and third parties. Local planning authorities were surveyed and a series of stakeholder meetings was held.

  Overall, the new rules are meeting the objectives of improved handling and greater fairness. The new arrangements represented a radical change of culture for all concerned. Strict enforcement of deadlines has had a big impact on parties' delivery of documents and has contributed to improved performance by the Planning Inspectorate in deciding planning appeals over the last year. There is now greater recognition and acceptance that all parties have a responsibility in making the appeals system work smoothly.

  We have concluded that no further changes to the procedures should be made at this stage. Rather, we intend to allow more time for the new rules to bed in. In the meantime, it is essential that all parties adhere to deadlines and do not seek to gain advantage over others by failing to do so. We shall continue to reinforce this message and to keep the operation of the procedures closely under review. We do not rule out the possibility of further measures to improve the operation of the planning appeals procedures to tackle abuses and to improve the speed of decisions.

  The Planning Green Paper which we published on 12 December 2001 notes the dramatic improvements made by the Planning Inspectorate in the timeliness of appeal decisions and that we are working with them to consider ways in which the targets we set for this work might be improved still further without compromising quality.

  We welcome the publication on 30 January of "Planning Practice Standard: Handling Appeals in England", prepared by the Royal Town Planning Institute with the active involvement of the Planning Inspectorate. This gives helpful good practice advice on participation in the planning appeals system and underlines the importance of parties acting in a responsible, co-operative and timely manner and of observing high standards of professional conduct.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what level of general grant he will set for the Greater London Authority in 2002–03. [33834]

  Mr. Raynsford
  General GLA Grant for 2002–03 has today been determined at £27.95 million, after consultation with the Mayor of London. This includes
  741W
  provision for accommodation costs at City Hall, the landmark building the Government are providing for the GLA and the Londoners from June this year.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Transport Directive
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent to which the provisions as outlined in the European directive on animal transport (Council Directive 91/625/EEC, as amended by 95/628/EEC) are working to protect non-human primates during transport; and if she will make a statement. [32633]

  Mr. Morley
  This is a matter that we shall take up with the European Commission later this year when they bring forward proposals to improve and update Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended, on the protection of animals during transport.

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what operational changes have resulted in changes in the number of cases of BSE confirmed by active surveillance. [32197]

  Mr. Morley
  The increase in positive cases of BSE identified by active surveillance is a direct result of the expansion of our active surveillance programme since 1 July 2001.

  In July 2001, in Great Britain we tested nearly 4,000 cattle of which 0.5 per cent. were confirmed as positive; in December 2001 we tested nearly 19,000 cattle of which 0.4 per cent. were confirmed as positive.

  Air Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of(a) moderate, (b) high and (c) very high air pollution there were recorded at Lullington Heath, East Sussex, in each year since 1997. [31962]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: The numbers of days of moderate, high and very high pollution at Lullington Heath since 1997 are given in Table 1. Pollution at each site is defined according to the pollutant that is in the highest band during the day. Ratified data are available up to 30 September 2001. After this date, care must be taken in interpretation of the pollution levels recorded, since high measurements may be the result of instrument error that is still to be identified.

  Table 1: Number of days of moderate, high and very high air pollution at Lullington Heath, East Sussex in each year since 1997

  Level

  Moderate

  High

  Very high

  1997

  77

  3

  0

  1998

  47

  1

  0

  1999

  83

  5

  0

  2000

  43

  0

  0

  2001

  54

  3

  0

  742W
  All the days of moderate, high and very high pollution recorded at Lullington Heath were due to ozone pollution. There were no recorded days of moderate, high or very high pollution for nitrogen dioxide or sulphur dioxide in any of the five years. High air pollution episodes due to ozone are recorded only in the summer months. The pollution is linked to hot sunny weather when industrial and motor vehicle emissions react under these conditions to form ground-level ozone. Light easterly winds sometimes bring this pollution across to the UK from central Europe. If conditions are very still for several days then high pollution can be generated by pollution emissions from UK sources too.

  Racial Unrest
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to act on the analysis in the Sustainable Development Commission Review of last summer's racial unrest in respect of the importance of environmental justice. [29409]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Sustainable Development Commission Review helpfully draws attention to the links between social deprivation and environmental inequality, and it highlights the significant impact this has on ethic minority communities.

  My speech on Environmental Equity given to the Environmental Law Foundation on 21 November 2001 demonstrates how seriously I view these issues, and the work I am doing to generate debate and find answers.

  The issues raised are cross-cutting, from regeneration to justice. They involve many Government Departments and agencies. Examples of our work so far include the Action Plan published last November for addressing the housing needs of black and ethnic minority people. This has 70 specific commitments about such things as, for example, allocations policy. The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit has developed Community Support Teams. Each has a pool of people with special skills who can he deployed flexibly and directly. They will be able to support and develop local political leadership to supplement the local authorities and Local Strategic Partnerships. The reports published in December 2001 about last summer's disturbances in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley stressed the need to make community cohesion a central policy objective of all that we do. This must include environmental policy.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications there have been for recycling plants for refrigerators and freezers in Buckinghamshire area; and when she expects them to be operational. [30044]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been no planning applications for recycling plants for refrigerators and freezers in the Buckinghamshire area. Neither have there been any applications for waste management licences for such plants.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is
  743W
  taking to enable (a) farmers and (b) non-farmers to have access to funds available for rural recovery following the foot and mouth crisis. [31158]

  Alun Michael
  As the hon. Member is aware from a previous answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 539W, the Government have been actively raising awareness among affected businesses of the financial aid available to help cope with the impact of foot and mouth disease. The Small Business Service has sent out 3.7 million copies of their leaflet "Coping with Foot and Mouth Disease—help for business" via banks, post offices, trade associations, employer organisations, etc. Business advice fact sheets have been posted on DEFRA's website, http: //www.defra.gov.uk/, and we have set up help lines. The regional development agencies have also been actively promoting the Business Recovery Fund.

  "England's Rural Future" published on 13 December our response to the reports of the Rural Task Force and Lord Haskins along with steps taken to implement the Rural White Paper. We are further promoting increased awareness and penetration of the measures we have put in place.

  The Small Business Service embarked on an ambitious £2.5 million national advertising campaign in autumn 2001 under the title "The Unfair Advantage". It is designed to improve awareness of Business Links, and start driving responses from all business sectors to the national contact centre or Business Link website.

  Farmers whose animals have been culled out as a result of foot and mouth disease have been targeted directly for the enhanced (five day) Farm Business Advice Service (FBAS). Publicity for the service has been direct to farms in the form of a personalised mail shot and explanatory leaflet. In addition the Rural Development Service's seminars held locally outlined the components of the service and how farmers can register. Further regional promotion by Business Links is conducted as and when it is necessary.

  Aggregates Levy
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the sustainability fund set up as a result of the aggregates levy will be controlled and allocated at a local level. [26046]

  Mr. Meacher
  Consultations on how to distribute the aggregates levy sustainability fund in England ended on 27 November. We are currently reflecting on all the issues raised in the consultation, and decisions on the final shape and distribution of the fund are expected to be made soon.

  Radioactive Waste
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of international agreements on the disposal of radioactive waste at sea; whether these agreements are being renewed; and if it is her policy that they should be reviewed. [28758]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK is a contracting party to both the OSPAR convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north east Atlantic 1992. and the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter 1972 (known as the 744W
  London convention) which applies globally. Both conventions prohibit the disposal at sea of radioactive waste, and we see no need for these provisions to be reviewed. The UK is very active within both conventions in seeking to ensure that environmental protection standards continue to develop in an effective and appropriate way in the light of the latest scientific knowledge.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements there are for the(a) concealing and protected disposal of radioactive waste for which the UK Government are responsible and (b) retrieval and protected containment of previously disposed of radioactive waste where it has been necessary to retrieve it. [28756]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are certainly no arrangements to conceal disposals of radioactive waste for which the UK Government are responsible.

  The arrangements for disposal of radioactive waste in the UK require that all disposals of civil waste are subject to the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, as amended. This Act does not apply to the Ministry of Defence, but its policy is that where practicable it will apply standards at least as stringent as those required by the Act. At present the main UK disposal site is at Drigg in Cumbria; this is authorised to accept only low level waste. The UK environment agencies are the enforcing authorities for the Radioactive Substances Act. The health and safety executive are the enforcing authority for the safety of workers at the Drigg site.

  With regard to arrangements for the retrieval of waste already disposed of on land, the Government have accepted a proposal from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority that it retrieve the waste from the Dounreay shaft and process it to a form suitable either for disposal or any other long-term management option which the Government decide on for intermediate-level waste. Such retrieval will be subject to regulation by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  The consultation paper "Managing radioactive waste safely" sets out the Government's proposed decision making programme. The consultation period ends on 12 March and we would welcome comments from people all over the UK.

  The radioactive waste which was dumped at sea by the UK in the past does not give any cause for concern provided it is left undisturbed. Results obtained under the OECD's co-ordinated research and environmental surveillance programme (CRESP) related to sea disposal of radioactive wastes have demonstrated that the radiological impacts on human and oceanic populations emanating from the north east Atlantic dumpsites are exceedingly small compared to the natural background levels, and are likely to remain so. This view was reiterated in the OSPAR convention's quality status report 2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Any attempt to retrieve such waste would be both unnecessary and potentially hazardous for the personnel involved.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which(a) national and (b) international regulations and agreements apply to the disposal of UK originated radioactive waste (i) within mainland Britain, (ii) within territorial waters, (iii) outside territorial waters and (iv) in other countries. [28757]
  745W
  Mr. Meacher
  Within mainland Britain and territorial waters, the disposal of radioactive waste is subject to the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. The UK is also subject to the provisions of Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards in the European Union for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation.

  The dumping of radioactive waste at sea is prohibited under the OSPAR convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north east Atlantic 1992, and under the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter 1972 (known as the London convention), as amended in 1994, which applies globally. These conventions apply both within and beyond territorial waters, and the UK is a contracting party to both.

  The UK does not dispose of radioactive waste in other countries. However, it is Government policy that the wastes resulting from the reprocessing of foreign spent fuel are returned to the country of origin.

  Shipments of radioactive waste into, out of, and through the EU are regulated under the 1993 Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste Regulations (TFSRW). They apply to radioactive waste shipments to or from anywhere in the world.

  Sewage Treatment
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will take steps to clarify the powers which local authorities have to act in respect of smell nuisance from sewage treatment works. [32065]

  Mr. Meacher
  Except in the specific circumstances under which sewage works are regulated under the IPPC provisions, local authorities have a duty under section 79(1)(d) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to investigate complaints about smell or odours arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance. If a local authority's environmental health officer is satisfied that the smell or odour complained about amounts to a statutory nuisance then the local authority must serve an abatement notice on the owner or occupier of the premises. However, in coming to a decision an environmental health officer would need to determine whether "best practicable means" are being used to prevent the nuisance or counteract its effect. Generally local authorities will try to work closely with the water undertakings to investigate and monitor odour problems from sewage treatment works without having to resort to abatement measures or legal action.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies she has conducted into the implications for wildlife of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 since its enactment; and if she will make a statement. [31616]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside and Rights of Way Act was the first major piece of wildlife legislation for 20 years and introduced new rights of access to the open countryside, amended the law in relation to rights of way and improved protection and management of sites of special scientific interest, wildlife and areas of outstanding natural beauty. We believe the Act has 746W
  significant benefits, both for the wildlife which, through the provisions in Parts III and IV of the Bill, it aims directly to protect and conserve, and for people better to appreciate the wildlife in our countryside.

  The wildlife and access advisory group has collated known research and guidance on the sensitivities of wildlife to access. The group comprises English Nature, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others. In addition the Access Scientific Research and Monitoring Group, whose members also include EN, the agency and CCW, is advising on a range of project proposals arising from the report "Access and bird conservation: priorities for research", produced in 2001.

  No studies about the implications of Part II for wildlife have been carried out or are planned: however the provisions include amendments to the circumstances in which traffic authorities may make traffic regulation orders, so as to include the purpose of protecting SSSIs.

  English Nature is responsible for implementing the new provisions for more effective protection and management of SSSIs. The improvements are likely to take time to take effect. English Nature's regular SSSI condition assessments will show over time how far the new legislation has resulted in improvements to these sites. Further detail on the exercise of the new powers will be provided in English Nature's annual report, to be published later in the year.

  In relation to the wildlife law enforcement provisions in Schedule 12, officials have asked for information, through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime, about the use of the new powers and the imposition of higher penalties for offences under Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. From the responses received it is clear that the powers are being used to good effect and that at least one person has received a prison sentence while others have been given community service orders.

  Environmentally Beneficial Land Use
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incentives are being provided by her Department to farmers and landowners practising environmentally conscious methods of land use on their property; and if she will make a statement. [31615]

  Alun Michael
  Funding for farmers and land managers undertaking environmentally beneficial activities is available under the DEFRA agri-environment schemes, Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Organic Farming. Under the England Rural Development Programme, a total of £1 billion is planned to be spent on these schemes between 2000–06.

  A review of the agri-environment schemes will begin shortly, with a view to reporting in 2003. The review will take forward the recommendation of the Policy Commission on the future development of these schemes.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of competition in the water industry. [31509]

  Mr. Meacher
  Existing possibilities for competition in the water industry have led to significant improvements in the efficiency of statutory undertakers and benefits for customers. Undertakers already contract out a number of their services and activities on a competitive basis. They compete with one another to offer large industrial users water management services and customers using more than 100 mega litres of water per year are also able to take advantage of inset appointments. The regulatory regime also provides for a system of comparative competition which enables the Director General of Water Services to compare the efficiency of statutory undertakers when setting price limits. The Department has been examining the possibilities for extending the scope for competition in the water industry, including consideration of the impact this would have on different customer groups. DEFRA will be publishing a consultation paper, setting out the issues and proposals later this year.

  Central Heating (Pensioners)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance is available to pensioners to upgrade inefficient central heating systems; and if she will make a statement. [31344]

  Mr. Meacher
  Where either a pensioner does not have a central heating system of their existing system has broken down they may apply to the Government's Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) for assistance. HEES has been designed to provide packages of insulation and heating measures up to £2,000, dependent upon the needs of the householders and property type. Its annual budget is £150 million.

  Further assistance is provided through the reduction of VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. and the increase to winter fuel payments for pensioner households to £200. The latter is expected to be worth £1.7 billion per annum and provides assistance to 11.5 million people.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the time scale for stage 2 of the feasibility assessments for combined heat and power under the terms of climate change agreements. [32309]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: Climate change agreements set eligible operators challenging targets to reduce their energy use in return for an 80 per cent. reduction in the level of climate change levy on that energy use. A move to use more energy efficient combined heat and power (CHP) installations is one way in which operators can meet their targets. The targets for most facilities have taken into account any contribution that CHP installations can make. However, in some sectors not enough was known about the technical and economic feasibility of combined heat and power in their processes. In these cases the agreements provided for an assessment of the feasibility over the first 18 months of
  748W
  the agreements, with a view to revising targets for those installations in which CHP could make a significant, cost effective contribution, by the third milestone ie 2007.

  The first stage in the assessment was completed in November 2001 and the second was due to be completed by 4 January. However, current conditions in the energy markets have not helped the economic case for CHP and there have also been delays in obtaining data with which to set the tests. Consequently, stage 2 has been deferred. This will also allow the procedure's design to take account of developments resulting from the Government's draft CHP Strategy and DTI's consultation on the Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators, both of which will be published shortly.

  A decision on the revised timetable for the assessment will be made over the coming months but it will not delay the re-negotiation of targets for the third milestone as originally intended.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why the Department of Environment in Northern Ireland was not consulted prior to the decision to commission the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield; and if she will make a statement. [24262]

  Margaret Beckett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I decided on 3 October 2001 that mixed oxide (MOX) manufacture is "justified" under the basic safety standards directive. We alone were responsible for taking the decision and others could only offer advice. We and the Environment Agency conducted five public consultation exercises before we made the decision.

  The Health and Safety Executive gave its consent on 19 December 2001 to the plutonium commissioning of the Sellafield MOX Plant. Its consent was required under the terms of British Nuclear Fuels' nuclear site licence, before the plant could operate.

  Health and Safety issues were fully considered in the decision published on 3 October, and the Executive was under no obligation to consult before reaching its own decision.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of EU proposals to introduce a traceability system that ensure all GMOs can be identified through the food chain. [21208]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I represented the UK at the Environment Council held in Luxembourg on 29 October. This was the first Environment Council of the Belgian presidency. Council reached political agreement on four common positions: the UK voted in favour of each. Four sets of Council conclusions were agreed. There were two orientation debates: one, in public, on a proposed regulation concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products derived from them, and a second on the Commission's review of the Pesticides Authorisation Directive (91/414/EEC).
  749W
  Political agreement was reached without discussion on a recommendation concerning implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe. This aims to encourage member states to carry out a stocktake of institutions and laws affecting their coastal zones, and to adopt national strategies to promote integrated management.

  In reaching political agreement on a proposed amendment to Directive 97/68/EC on non-road mobile machinery emissions, the UK achieved its objective of ensuring deletion of an article permitting the use of economic incentives, noting that the directive did not have an appropriate legal base for such an article. The amended directive will introduce exhaust emission standards for small, off-road petrol engines and large diesel generators, and aims to align European provisions with existing US regulations.

  Political agreement was also reached on an amendment to Directive 94/25/EC laying down limit values for exhaust and noise emissions from new recreational craft placed on the Community market. The Council agreed limit values at the levels proposed by the European Commission in COM(2000)639 dated 12 October 2000. Particularly in relation to noise emissions, agreement was reached on less costly methods of demonstrating compliance. Overall the agreement represents a reasonable balance between achieving challenging environmental objectives while minimising the cost to small and medium-sized business and individuals.

  Council reached political agreement on a proposed decision continuing for the period 2002–06 an annual funding programme for environmental NGOs active at a European level. The Commission's proposed total budget of euro 32 million was agreed. The UK's main objective of ensuring that the selection and monitoring process was transparent and fair was met in the common position text.

  Ministers agreed a common approach on a proposed directive to bring Community rules into line with the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention dealing with public consultation in environmental decision-making. The UK welcomed the proposal and asked that the Commission also take steps to present another proposal seeking to apply the provisions of the Aarhus convention to the Community institutions, in order to enable the Community to ratify the convention.

  During a public orientation debate on a proposed regulation on traceability and labelling of GMOs, Council discussed the scope of the proposed system. While welcoming the intention of the proposal to improve safety and consumer choice in GM food and crops, the UK's current judgment was that the requirement to label and trace the source of products which contain no detectable GM material would be unworkable. The UK expressed concern about whether the information given to consumers would be reliable and whether developing countries would be able to provide the information expected from importers. The UK took the view that the Commission's proposals for allowing certain imports of crops containing GMOs that are not approved in the EU were unsatisfactory as they stood and that further urgent work was needed, particularly on agreeing an international system for identifying individual GMOs. Member states were still divided on when the EU decision-making process for GM products could be
  750W
  restarted. While recognising the importance of the proposal to rebuilding confidence in the decision-making process on GMOs in the EU, the UK called for case-by-case consideration of applications and said that it was not tenable to encourage an illicit moratorium.

  Council conclusions adopted in preparation for the seventh Conference of the Parties (COP7) to the UN framework convention on climate change, taking place in Marrakech from 29 October to 9 November, called on all parties to respect the Bonn agreement, and underlined the need for progress in the relevant international fora in tackling emissions from aviation and shipping. The conclusions stressed the resolve of the Community and its member states to ratify the Kyoto protocol in a timely manner, with a view to its entry into force by the World summit on sustainable development next September. Environment Commissioner Wallstrom also presented a proposal to ratify the Kyoto protocol, a draft directive on a CO2 emissions trading scheme and a communication on the European climate change programme.

  Council Conclusions were adopted on a Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme stressing the priority attached to the problems of ozone, particulates and acidification. Council also adopted Conclusions on a Communication on Conservation of Natural Resources, and Conclusions on the Commission's general Communication on Biodiversity, highlighting the need to implement biodiversity action plans and halt biodiversity decline across the EU.

  Council held a discussion to inform the adoption of six sustainable development indicators to be used in the Commission's synthesis report for the Barcelona spring European Council. The Commission would publish its report on indicators on 31 October. An exchange of views was also held on the Commission's review of Directive 91/414/EEC on agricultural pesticides. The UK stressed the need to speed up the pace of the review of older compounds. The debate also considered the substitution principle and restrictions on those allowed to use certain categories of pesticides.

  The Belgian presidency and Commission reported on a number of proposals, including the EU Chemicals Strategy, environmental liability and a recently adopted Communication on dioxins, furans and PCBs. France briefly outlined measures taken by the French Government since a major explosion at an ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant in Toulouse in September. The inquiry into this accident will inform the planned revision of the Seveso II directive, but the Commission will not delay adoption of its proposal.

  Over lunch Ministers discussed preparations for the WTO Ministerial in Doha on 9–13 November, and preparations for the World summit on sustainable development (Rio+10) to be held in Johannesburg in September 2002.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many GM crop sites there are in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement on GM crops. [22868]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]There were 161 sites in the UK where GM crop plants were grown in 2001. Of these, 108 were in respect of the Farm Scale Evaluations, 16 were for National List trials
  751W
  and 37 were in respect of other research trials The Government will not approve GM crop releases unless it is clear there is no significant risk to human health or the environment.

  Insulation Grants
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many insulation grants have been made in each of the last 10 years. [30564]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The original Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) started in 1991 and ran until May 2000. HEES was available in Great Britain and provided a single main insulation measure up to the value of £315.

  New HEES was launched on 1 June 2000 and is now marketed as the Warm Front Team. The scheme has been designed to provide packages of insulation and heating measures up to £2,000 to private sector householders in England, dependent upon their needs and property type. The annual budget is £150 million. HEES is expected by 2004, to have provided assistance to 800,000 fuel poor householders i.e. those who spend 10 per cent. or more of their income to stay warm.

  Fuel Poverty is a devolved area of responsibility. Scotland launched its scheme in July 1999 and Wales followed in November 2000. Northern Ireland runs its own scheme.

  The table provides the information requested:

  Financial year

  Number of insulation grants made in Great Britain

  1991–92

  167,000

  1992–93

  204,000

  1993–94

  270,000

  1994–95

  450,000

  1995–96

  624,000

  1996–97

  415,000

  1997–98

  416,000

  1998–99

  419,000

  1999–2000

  1405,000

  2000–01

  285,000

  2001–02

  3171,000

  1 Data relate to the whole of Great Britain up to July 1999 when Scotland launched its own scheme.

  2 Data relate to England and Wales up to November 2000 when Wales launched its own scheme.

  3 Data relate to the period April 2001 to December 2001

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State dated 3 December 2001; [28512]

  (2) when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive an answer to his question tabled on 15 January (ref. 28512). [32857]

  Mr. Morley
  A response to the hon. Member's letter of 3 December 2001 was sent on 26 January 2002.

  Wye Navigation Order
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made in regard to the Wye navigation order. [33118]

  Mr. Meacher
  The application made by the Environment Agency for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to confer on it powers to regulate navigation on the River Wye has raised complicated legal and policy issues which require very careful consideration. We are considering the inspector's report, together with the comments of those appearing at the inquiry on the detailed post inquiry representations which we received.

  We will make a decision on the application as soon as possible. Before doing so, we will consult the National Assembly for Wales since the proposed order would, if made, affect Wales as well as England.

  Noise Nuisance
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to achieve the community noise level of 60dBa for an outside noise event. [11081]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figure of 60dBA is the World Health Organisation's recommended guideline limit for night time noise events. Noisiness of equipment is regulated variously at UK and/or international level depending on the type of source. New noisy and noise-sensitive development is potentially subject to planning controls, and local authorities must have regard to PPG 24 (Planning and Noise) when formulating and applying their development plans. Noise from dwellings may be addressed by local authorities. Noise from aircraft taking off or landing is subject to airport-based noise controls, and in the case of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports is regulated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under s.78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are unemployed in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [32125]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment in Greater London. I am replying in his absence. (32125)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of unemployment in the Greater London region, based on the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition of unemployment. The most recently available figures— for autumn (September to

  753W
  November) 2001— show that the number of unemployed people in Greater London was 269,000, with an unemployment rate of 7.2 per cent. These estimates are not seasonally adjusted.

  Fraud and Error
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the proportion of claims for the children's premium in income support and jobseeker's allowance which have been(a) fraudulent and (b) incorrect. [25988]

  Mr. McCartney
  There is not a 'children's premium' in income support or jobseeker's allowance. People claiming either benefit may claim for dependent members of their household. The latest information on the levels of fraud and error is in "The Results of the Area Benefit Review and Quality Support Team from April 1999 to March 2000: Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance", a copy of which is available in the Library. However, it is not possible to disaggregate the number of cases in which fraud and error are attributable solely to incorrect claims for dependent children.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the expected saving in 2001–02 from the security and control programme. [19002]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The security and control programme has been replaced by our comprehensive strategy to reduce fraud and error. This strategy is set out in our paper: A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security (Cm 4276; March 1999). We are tightening up the system to make sure that the right amount goes to the right person from the outset of a claim.

  We have set firm targets to reduce the amount of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 25 per cent. by 2004 and 50 per cent. by 2006. Latest results show that from our baseline period in 1998 to March 2001 we have achieved an 18 per cent. reduction and we expect this good progress to continue.

  MSPs
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases have been raised with his Department by Members of the Scottish Parliament since 1 July 1999. [26401]

  Maria Eagle
  Around 900 letters from Members of the Scottish Parliament have been sent directly to this Department and the former Department of Social Security since 1 July 1999.

  New Deal (Wales)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those who have entered work through the new deal programme have commenced unsubsidised employment in(a) Wales and (b) the Cynon Valley. [26866]
  754W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the tables.

  Number of people helped into jobs in Wales 1

  Programme

  All jobs

  Unsubsidised jobs

  New deal for young people

  23,218

  21,078

  New deal 25 plus

  24,432

  22,981

  New deal 50 plus (employment credit claims)

  4,041

  4,041

  New deal for lone parents

  8,006

  8,006

  New deal for disabled people

  3269

  269

  New deal for partners

  4110

  110

  1 Up to the end of October 2001, unless otherwise stated.

  2 Figures relate to pre-April 2001 programme.

  3 From 2 July 2001 to 30 November 2001. From 1998 to June 2001 the new deal for disabled people pilots helped 8,200 people into unsubsidised jobs in 12 pilot areas. As this was not a national programme, figures cannot be broken down for Wales, Scotland or England, or constituencies.

  4 At 30 November 2001.

  Sources:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  New Deal for Disabled People Management Information

  Number of people helped into jobs in Cynon Valley 1

  Programme

  All jobs

  Unsubsidised jobs

  New deal for young people

  748

  673

  New deal 25 plus

  241

  234

  New deal 50 plus (employment credit claims)

  89

  89

  New deal for lone parents

  144

  144

  1Up to the end of October 2001, unless otherwise stated.

  2 Figures relate to pre-April 2001 programme.

  Sources:

  Employment Service Labour Market System

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  By definition, all jobs gained through the new deals for lone parents, 50 plus, disabled people and partners are unsubsidised. Constituency level information is not available for the new deals for disabled people and partners.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which years since 1972 his Department and its predecessors have had accounts qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General due to irregular expenditure; and if he will specify the irregular expenditure involved in each case. [26152]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Details of the accounts for the Department for Work and Pensions and its predecessors which have been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the basis of irregular expenditure since 1990–91 are shown in the table which has been placed in the Library.

  The Departmental Resource Account for 1999–2000 was also qualified, on the same basis as the Class XII Vote 1 and the National Insurance Fund Accounts.

  Care Homes (Expense Allowances)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to increase the expense allowance for pensioners living in old people's homes. [30383]
  755W
  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Decisions on the level of the personal expenses allowance for people in residential care to apply from April 2002 will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the number of pensioners in the Loughborough constituency living in old people's homes on with an expense allowance of less than £16.05 per week. [30382]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have not commissioned research into the number of pensioners in the Loughborough constituency living in old people's homes on a personal expense allowance of less than £16.05 per week. Under the Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide, all care home residents who are financially supported by the local council are left with a personal expenses allowance of at least £16.05 per week.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has given to local authorities on the provision of expense allowances to pensioners living in care. [30385]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Guidance on the personal expenses allowance is issued to councils in the charges for residential accommodation guide. The Department is in the process of updating this guidance.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incidents of(a) physical and (b)verbal assault have been recorded in Jobcentre Plus offices since their introduction. [23371]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since the introduction of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinders over half a million people have passed through the new offices. During that period there has been only one report of an incident involving physical contact. There have been 102 other reported incidents, the majority involving verbal abuse, or, in three cases, damage to office equipment.

  Social Fund Expenditure
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the budget for the social fund Inspectorate was in each of the last 10 years; [24964]

  (2) how much was claimed from the social fund in each of the last 10 years; [24965]

  (3) how many claimants sought review of their social fund provision in each of the last 10 years. [24967]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the social fund Inspectorate/Independent Review Service administration budget is available from 1994–95 onwards in the departmental reports of the former Department of Social Security. Information on this budget prior to 1994–95 was not collected separately. Information on social fund expenditure and social fund reviews from 1991–92 onwards is in the social fund annual reports.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.
  756W

  Employment
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of persons aged 18 to 24 years who are(a) unemployed, (b) unemployed for more than six months, (c) unemployed for more than 12 months and (d) unemployed for more than two years found sustained unsubsidised jobs in each quarter since 1991. [25980]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information is not available in the format requested. However, research evidence' suggests that of those who leave jobseeker's allowance for work, around three quarters do not return within the next three months.

  1 Source:

  JUVOS Cohort Survey

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans there are to establish a job transition service in the Cynon Valley. [26871]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Job Transition Service began operating in April 2001. Since 28 November 2001 its work has continued under the new name of the Rapid Response Service (RRS).

  The aim of the RRS is to support those affected by redundancy to make the transition into sustainable new jobs. The RRS responds to redundancies that have a significant impact on the local labour market. Each redundancy is different, and the exact nature of the help will be tailored to the needs of individuals, the local economy and the labour market concerned.

  A dedicated RRS Senior Manager has been appointed in Wales, Scotland and each region of England. Some elements of the service are already in place while others are still being piloted. The RRS is on track to be launched in full in April 2002, with an additional £6 million being allocated to this work over the next 2 years.

  The RRS has already provided specific assistance to people in the Cynon Valley affected by redundancies at Hitachi. Through an on-site jobshop employees were offered support to help find alternative employment and training opportunities. As a result of this support, to date over 60 people have been offered employment.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many press officers there were in his Department in each of the last four years; and what was the annual cost of their remuneration over that period. [27471]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in May 2001. This involved the amalgamation of parts of the Department for Education and Employment (including the Employment Service) with the Department of Social Security.

  The current level of full time press officers employed within the new Department for Work and Pensions is 18.

  The overall costs of press officers for the last four years have formed part of the budgets relating to the Departments that predated the formation of the Department for Work and Pensions. As such, it would be at disproportionate cost to retrieve precise figures for the remuneration of these staff.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action has been taken by each local authority in each of the last three years to increase benefit take-up; and how much each campaign has cost. [27766]

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

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employers, having advertised vacancies with the Employment Service, have subsequently been found to have breached the minimum wage legislation. [27886]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is not available.

  The Employment Services takes in excess of 200,000 vacancies a month and all of these must meet the requirements of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. If we receive a complaint about an employer who advertised with the Employment Service but is subsequently found not to be meeting the requirements of the minimum wage legislation, we direct the complainant to the Minimum Wage Enforcement Agency to investigate the case. The Employment Service also suspends its services to that employer until investigations are completed.

  Muslim Women
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2001,Official Report, column 1045W, on Muslim women, what research he has commissioned on the participation of Muslim women in the labour market. [28219]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Previous research in the Department has been concerned with labour market participation by ethnic group rather than religion. However, the Department is currently giving consideration to funding a qualitative research study in 2002 featuring the labour market experiences of Muslim women as part of a wider study of all ethnic groups.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is putting in place to meet targets for the answering of written parliamentary questions. [28337]

  Maria Eagle
  In the Department for Work and pensions during the period from October to December 2001 we dealt with 1,392 questions, which is around double the number for similar periods in recent years. We have allocated on a temporary basis additional resources to process the higher level of questions and we are monitoring the situation very closely to see whether the trend continues. Parliamentary questions are not the only way of getting information from the Department. Some information sought by hon. and right hon. Members is available in departmental publications which can be found in the Library.
  758W

  Child Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the Child Support Agency costings required by his Department's Euro Programme. [24212]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Should the UK decide to enter the single currency, costs to the DWP will depend on the approach taken. Details of progress on DWP's euro preparations work were included in the Fifth Report on Euro Preparations, published in November 2001. The report is available in the Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the timetable for implementation of the new Child Support Agency maintenance laws; and if he will make a statement. [28918]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Changes to the child support scheme will take effect for new cases from April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred when the new scheme is working well, we expect this to be about a year later.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional resources have been allocated to the Independent Case Examiner in anticipation of the child support reforms. [30958]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Plans are being developed to deal with any anticipated potential increase in the work load of the Independent Case Examiner arising from the introduction of the new child support scheme. Appropriate levels of resource will be determined as part of the planning process.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have worked for the Independent Case Examiner Service in each year since its creation. [30959]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the number of staff working for the Independent Case Examiner's Office, in each year since the establishment of the office (in April 1997), are in the table.

  Staff employed

  1997–98

  41

  1998–99

  38

  1999–2000

  46

  2000–01

  60

  2001–02

  172

  2001–02

  280

  1 Figures as at 25 January 2002

  2 Projected to 31 March 2002

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the budget of the Independent Case Examiner has been in each year since its creation. [30960]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the actual costs of funding the Independent Case Examiner's office, in each year since its creation are in the table:

  Annual budget

  1997–98

  1,025,675

  1998–99

  920,960

  1999–2000

  1,040,811

  2000–01

  1,176,087

  2001–02

  11,619,945

  Projected expenditure to 31 March 2002

  Parental Leave (Income Support)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parties have claimed income support during parental leave in each year since its introduction. [29293]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  WAN Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 302W, on benefit fraud, if he will state the exact contract price of the new WAN service and its predecessor. [30135]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The contract for the new WAN service was let to the BT led ACCORD Consortium ARCWAY through open competition. The contract price for the WAN is therefore commercially confidential.

  The contract price of the new WAN service is broadly comparable to that of the old one and is at the lower price end of industry benchmarks for this type of service.

  Invoices paid

  Invoices paid within target

  Percentage of invoices paid within target

  Invoice paid outside target

  Percentage of invoices paid outside target

  Benefits Agency

  151,609

  144,104

  95.05

  7,505

  4.95

  Child Support Agency

  22,869

  20,863

  91.23

  2,006

  8.77

  Headquarters

  38,919

  36,142

  92.86

  2,777

  7.14

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  539

  533

  98.89

  6

  1.11

  War Pensions Agency

  3,612

  3,581

  99.14

  31

  0.86

  Appeals Service

  10,638

  10,191

  95.80

  447

  4.20

  Total

  228,186

  215,414

  94.40

  12,772

  5.60

  Hospital Stays (Benefit Downrating)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many NHS patients were subject to hospital downrating of benefits in the last three years; what were the average delays in days between(a) their discharge from hospital and (b) their formal claim for restoration of benefit, and the first payment of such benefits; and what was the average delay from (i) discharge and (ii) claim to restoration of benefit for those experiencing the top decile of such delays. [32463]

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

  Fuel Direct Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department has(a) allocated and (b) spent on the fuel direct scheme in each of the last four years; how many people have benefited in each year; and how the scheme is promoted. [32625]
  760W
  The Department will receive a significantly improved service in the areas of service flexibility, performance, management information and security, and so position the Department to further modernise its IT in the future.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 899W, on the 2001 departmental report, how much and what proportion of the departmental unallocated provision has been used to meet unexpected funding. [30139]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  None to date.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32028]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department aims to pay all invoices within 30 days of receipt where no other contract exists. During 2000–01 in the former Department of Social Security of the 228,186 invoices paid there were 12,772 invoices not paid according to the prescribed timescales—this means 94.4 per cent. were within target. Details for departmental agencies and bodies are listed below.

  Malcolm Wicks
  Tackling fuel poverty is one of this Government's key priorities. A number of measures have been put in place to ensure that by 2010, no vulnerable household will have to struggle to heat their home when it is cold. These measures include the £200 winter fuel payment for households that qualify, cold weather payments, a cut in the level of VAT on fuel and radical improvements to the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme.

  The fuel direct scheme provides valuable, last-resort protection against the threat of disconnection for people in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance who are in arrears with their utility bills. Fuel companies generally make customers who have fallen into arrears aware of the scheme.

  Information on the value of deductions from benefit under the fuel direct scheme is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Information on the numbers of people benefiting from the scheme is in the table.
  761W

  Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance recipients with deductions for fuel direct, Great Britain, 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Year

  Number of people

  1997–98

  147,500

  1998–99

  103,500

  1999–2000

  75,000

  2000–01

  61,400

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance recipients and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. The figures are an average, using quarterly data for each of the last 4 years, of the number of people with deductions.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 to February 2001.

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 to February 2001

  State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the basis for the statement by Baroness Hollis on 24 January 2002,Official Report, House of Lords, column 1642, regarding the proportion of men and women who receive the full basic state pension. [32859]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my noble Friend, Baroness Hollis of Heigham, in the other place on 28 January 2002,Official Report, House of Lords, column WA14.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to restrict the winter fuel allowance to those of pensionable age; and if he will make a statement. [33050]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are currently no plans to make such a change to the winter fuel payment scheme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Aid
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on amendments to the nature and direction of the EU overseas aid package. [31490]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have regular discussions with EU counterparts on the nature and direction of the EU's external assistance.

  The General Affairs Council will discuss the effectiveness of the EU's external action's including financial assistance, on 18 February. The Development Council on 8 November 2001, attended by the Secretary of State for International Development recommended that further work be done by the Permanent Representatives Committee to ensure that the views of Development Ministers are fed into the General Affairs Council discussion on external actions in February.
  762W

  Detainees
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what report he has received on the numbers and conditions of detention of UK citizens held by the United States(a) at the Guantanamo base in Cuba and (b) elsewhere. [29797]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British officials visited Guantanamo Bay from 17–20 January and saw three British detainees. None of the detainees complained of any ill treatment.

  We continue to investigate reports of individuals detained in Afghanistan who might be British. We are currently aware of two such individuals detained in Kandahar by the US authorities.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other NGOs on the treatment of prisoners held by the United States at the Guantanamo base and elsewhere. [29799]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None. It is standard practice for the International Committee of the Red Cross to report confidentially to the detaining power only. The ICRC have established a presence at Guantanamo Bay and their officials have access to the detainees at any time. They also have access to detainees held by the US authorities in Afghanistan.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the United States Government concerning the treatment of prisoners captured in the conflict in Afghanistan. [29800]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The US authorities have said that the detainees held by the US are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva conventions.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason US television networks were not permitted to film a recent forces show at the US base on Diego Garcia. [29795]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  By treaty agreement with the US, access to Diego Garcia is restricted. Conditional permission was given for a television network to cover a US forces show planned for Diego Garcia, but the television network decided in the end not to go ahead with the event.

  European Union
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the areas of the European Union's institutions' exclusive competence in the European Union. [29764]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Government accept that in certain fields, such as the common commercial policy and fisheries conservation, exclusive Community competence is essential and beneficial for all EU member states.
  763W
  The issue of competences will be discussed at the convention on the future of Europe, beginning on 28 February, under the heading of "A better division and delimitation of competences in the European Union".

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas of member states' exclusive competence in the European Union. [29841]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Unlike the member states, the European Communities have no inherent competence; they only have such competence as is accorded to them by the Community treaties. Accordingly, the competence of the member states is limited only to the extent that the communities have competence in accordance with the treaties.

  Overseas Posts (Publications)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what publications are produced by(a) the British Embassy, (b) British consulates and (c) British Council offices in (i) Poland, (ii) Estonia, (iii) Latvia and (iv) Lithuania; and in what languages they are produced. [31147]

  Peter Hain
  There are no British consulates in any of the three Baltic states. The British consulates in Katowice, Poznan, Gdansk, Szczecin, Wroclaw and Kradov do not have any publications.

  Publications for embassies are as follows:

  Poland

  UK21 (British Embassy magazine) in Polish.

  Leaflet on travelling to the UK in Polish.

  Action Local Government in Polish.

  Estonia

  Embassy brochure (English).

  Book on UK's role in Estonia's fight for independent (English and Estonian).

  Latvia

  No publications on a regular basis.

  Material for last May's British Week (programmes/flyers)—Latvian/Russian.

  Lithuania

  Britain's view on the advantages of European Union membership for Lithuania (Lithuanian).

  Farm diversification book (Lithuanian).

  Organic food production and marketing (Lithuanian/English).

  European fund and experience-A chance to every region (Russian).

  Studying in the EU and acknowledgement of diplomas (Russian).

  There are further documents published both on the websites of individual posts. The addresses are—Poland: www.britishembassy.pl; Latvia: www.britain.lv; Lithuania: www.britain.lt; Estonia: www.britishembassy.ee.

  Publications by the British Council are as follows:

  Poland
  British Council monthly events calendar (English, Polish); Publicity and promotional leaflets and catalogues for various events (English, Polish); English language resource centre materials (English, Polish); English teaching centre brochures (English, Polish); various competitions and programmes (English, Polish); governance and society programmes and projects (English); Examinations promotional and information materials
  764W
  (English, Polish); British Council Poland website (www.britishcouncil.pl) (English, Polish is planned); European year of languages—www.ey12001.p1 (English); British studies project website http://elt.britcoun.org.pl (English); Literature project Poland organisations—translations of British poets (Polish); various bilingual pamphlets (English, Polish); First translations of author/text into Polish—Roll Call essays on twentieth century English fiction (Polish); In the belly of the whale: essays on modem British poetry (Polish), Don Paterson and Ciaran Carson-poetry and music (CD—English); Four author presentation (CD—English).

  Estonia
  Quarterly information leaflets about events and projects run by the British Council are published in English. Media briefings about British Council events and occasionally longer articles for magazines and newspapers are published either in Estonian or Russian depending on the language of the publication. The www.britishcouncil.ee website is in English but its main content will be bilingual (English and Estonian) later in 2002.

  Latvia
  A quarterly British Council news and events listing, in poster format is published in English. The www.britishcouncil.lv web site is in English but will be bilingual (English/Latvian) by the end of 2002. Promotional leaflets about the British Council are produced in English and Latvian. The quarterly English language teaching newsletter (for teachers) is published in English.

  Lithuania
  British Council Vilnius News—a quarterly newsletter about Council activities is a bilingual (English/Lithuanian) publication. Promotional leaflets about British Council services are bilingual. The www.britishcouncil.lt website is currently in English only, but will be bilingual from April 2002.

  KPMG
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts his Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31328]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO has two contracts with KPMG. The first relates to new financial management and human resource systems for which the value to date is £4.04 million with an additional £1.48 million forecast for 2002–03. The second relates to the implementation of an information communications technology strategy for which the value to date is £1.9 million with a further £200,000 forecast for 2002–03.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit(a) China, (b) Taiwan and (c) South Korea. [31680]

  Mr. Straw
  I hope to visit China later this year. I have no plans to visit Taiwan. Other visits to the region remain under review.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit(a) Singapore, (b) Malaysia and (c) Indonesia. [31679]

  Mr. Straw
  I have no firm plans to visit these countries.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Gulf states. [31682]

  Mr. Straw
  I have no current firm plans for a substantive visit to the Gulf states.
  765W
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Poland. [31867]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Poland in october 2001. I intend to visit in the next two months.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Gibraltar. [33835]

  Peter Hain
  At the Brussels process ministerial meeting today the Secretary of State and Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Pique, continued to make good progress in our discussions about Gibraltar in the atmosphere of friendship and understanding which links the UK and Spain, reaffirming the full range of commitments that we assumed at our previous meetings in London and Barcelona.

  Our common aim remains to conclude a comprehensive agreement before the summer, covering all outstanding issues, including co-operation and sovereignty.

  Both Governments confirmed that their shared objective is to overcome their differences over Gibraltar and to ensure a secure future for Gibraltar in which Gibraltar can preserve its way of life and traditions, enjoy greater internal self-government, sustain and enhance its prosperity, and reap the full benefits of a harmonious and mutually beneficial co-operation in all fields together with the wider region.

  We reiterate our invitation to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to attend future Brussels process meetings so that he, and through him the Gibraltarians, can join the current dialogue and contribute to it to the benefit of Gibraltar. We confirmed that the Chief Minister is warmly invited to participate on the basis of the two flags, three voices formula, having his own and distinct voice as part of the British delegation.

  Our intention is that the comprehensive agreement we seek will offer the best framework for a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar. In that framework, our objective is that Gibraltar can enjoy enhanced powers of internal self-government allowing its Government and population to have a greater say in their lives. We will invite the Government of Gibraltar to develop together with us the relevant ideas on this objective.

  We also took forward our work on all possible ways of enhancing co-operation to improve the quality of the daily lives of people in Gibraltar and the Campo region. The UK and Spain reaffirmed that the aim of the arrangements they seek is to promote the highest level of fruitful co-operation within the wider region, favouring better standards of living and working conditions in Gibraltar and the Campo, and fluid communications with the region.

  The Spanish Government recalled the arrangements it had made to allocate a further 70,000 telephone numbers for Gibraltar and reaffirmed that, as regards the technical responsibilities of the Spanish side, they are operational. It expressed its commitment to ensure that no obstacles prevent their immediate use for the benefit of all Gibraltarians. To that end, the UK and Spain agreed to
  766W
  engage in immediate talks to assess the situation and attain their objective. Both Governments also tackled the issue of pensions, a problem on which they will intensify their efforts to find a prompt solution consistent with the responsibilities of the public authorities involved.

  Afghanistan
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the interim Afghanistan Government in implementing democratic reforms. [30270]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since its inauguration on 22 December, the Interim Administration has made good progress in implementing the Bonn agreement. The Interim Administration represents the major ethnic groups in Afghanistan and includes Afghanistan's first Minister for Women's Affairs.

  On 25 January Hamid Karzai, Chair of the interim Administration, announced the appointment of the 21 members of the Special Commission for the convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga (the traditional Afghan Grand Council). The commission has the task of organising a Loya Jirga to take place in June. The Loya Jirga will then appoint a transitional Government to hold office until elections are held for a fully representative Government in 2002.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been to United Nations sanctions against Afghanistan. [33836]

  Mr. MacShane
  With the full support of Her Majesty's Government, on 16 January the United Nations Security Council ("UNSC") adopted resolution 1390 (2002). Taking into account the changing situation in Afghanistan, the resolution extended or amended some of the existing measures and introduced new measures targeting Usama bin Laden, members of the al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them designated by the UN Sanctions Committee on Afghanistan. Other UNSC sanctions targeting Afghanistan were terminated or allowed to lapse.

  UNSC resolution 1390 (2002) continues the asset freeze imposed by resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000) on senior members of the Taliban, Usama bin Laden and individuals and entities (including members of al-Qaeda) designated by the Security Council as associated with him, and extends it to all designated members of the Taliban and their associates. The resolution also places an embargo on the supply of arms and military assistance to, and imposes a world-wide travel ban on, Usama bin Laden and persons designated by the Security Council as members of the al-Qaeda organisation or the Taliban or their associates.

  A full list of those designated by the UN Sanctions Committee on Afghanistan is available on the UN website: http: //www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Afghanistan/ Afg_list_eng.htm.

  On 15 January the UNSC had adopted resolution 1388 (2002) removing all previous UNSC restrictions on Ariana Afghan Airlines.

  UK-Japan 21st Century Group
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement with the UK-Japan 21st century group. [32259]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office supports the work of the UK-Japan 21st century group. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and, where possible, Ministers have attended the annual conference of the group since it was founded (as the UK-Japan 2000 Group) in 1984.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he will have at the February conference of the UK-Japan 21st century group. [32258]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will host a reception for the group. I shall attend the conference, together with officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Echelon Interception System
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Parliament report of the Temporary Committee on the Echelon interception system. [32634]

  Mr. Straw
  In January 2001, as Home Secretary, I briefed a delegation from the European Parliament Temporary Committee on the legislation underpinning the work of the UK's intelligence agencies, most notably the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. The report seeks to address a difficult subject, but does not fully reflect the safeguards in place in the UK under RIPA, which ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights.

  Computer Hacking
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in 2001 attempts were made to gain unauthorised access to computers in his Department by hacking; and of those how many were successful. [32738]

  Mr. MacShane
  In 2001 there were three occasions when unauthorised access to FCO systems was identified. On the first occasion successful access was gained to the FCO's website, and the Internet service provider has subsequently put stronger firewalls in place. The second and third occasions both involved access to FCO computer systems through weaknesses which have now been resolved. In common with other Departments, no facility exists to alert FCO to unsuccessful attempts to gain unauthorised access.

  British Expatriates (Spain)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 36W, on British expatriates in Spain, what figures are held by the (a) Foreign Office and (b) the British Embassy in Spain, as to the number of UK nationals living permanently in Spain. [33125]
  768W
  Peter Hain
  (a) None.

  (b) For consular purposes, British nationals in Spain, whether visiting or permanently resident, may register their presence with the British embassy in Madrid, or the nearest British consulate. However, as registration is not compulsory, and few citizens choose to register, any figures derived from these registers would not be authoritative. Official Spanish figures therefore provide the best guide as to the number of British nationals resident in Spain.

  Syria
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent allegations made by Britain in the United Nations Sanctions Committee that Syria has violated UN sanctions on Iraqi oil. [32860]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Regular media and oil industry reports have shown that in 2001 Syria suddenly began exporting an average of over 100,000 barrels of oil per day more than the previous year, without increasing its own domestic production. These reports have consistently attributed this to Syria's illegal import of large quantities of Iraqi oil through the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline connecting the two countries. 100,000 barrels per day is a significant amount of oil, worth at current prices about $260 million of humanitarian funding every six months. This is more than Iraq plans to spend on medicine or education under the current six-month phase of the humanitarian programme. The export of Iraqi oil, without seeking UN approval, would be a serious breach of UN resolutions 661 and 986. We have therefore sought Syrian assurances in the UN Sanctions Committee that they will make transparent the operation of this pipeline, bring it within the UN system and allow the revenue raised from it to benefit the Iraqi people rather than the Baghdad regime.

  Kenya
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Kenyan Government about the imposition of import duties on goods being sent from the United Kingdom to aid street children; and if he will make a statement. [33053]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our High Commission in Nairobi has raised this issue with the Kenyan authorities. They are at this stage unwilling to grant an exemption for goods for charitable purposes. We will continue to raise the issue.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the golden jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the golden jubilee. [33246]

  Mr. Straw
  It is still too early yet to be certain of what national events I, or other FCO Ministers, will be attending. I expect, however, to attend the national service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's cathedral on 4 June.

  I will also be attending my county service of thanksgiving in Blackburn cathedral on Sunday 2 June.
  769W
  The Under Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), plans to be in his Exeter constituency for the visit there by Her Majesty on 1May.

  Baroness Amos will attend the Commonwealth Day observance on 11 March (I shall be at the General Affairs Council in Brussels).

  The FCO are sponsoring the tour of the Queen's golden jubilee baton through 20 Commonwealth countries. It will leave London on Monday 11 March, Commonwealth Day, and return to the UK on 5 June. Our posts overseas will arrange events and encourage publicity to support the baton's passage, supported by the local Commonwealth games associations and the British Council. We have also sponsored some aspects of the "Spirit of Friendship" festival associated with the 17th Commonwealth games in Manchester this summer, one of the high points of the jubilee.

  Additionally, there will be eight open days from April to October when the FCO will be open to view by members of the public. It is one of the "String of Pearls" of historic public buildings that will be open to the public, along the banks of the Thames in central London.

  We have issued general guidance to all our posts overseas on the celebrations of the golden jubilee. Many embassies and high commissions may use the occasion of the jubilee to enhance their regular Queen's Birthday Party. Missions will possibly hold additional events using publicity materials specifically prepared for the jubilee in the FCO, taking into account their local circumstances, and the Queen's desire that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds.

HEALTH

  HIV
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will ensure that priority is given to HIV prevention work after April. [28930]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department will monitor investment in HIV prevention through the national health service performance assessment framework and through returns required under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. This work will be underpinned by the proposed target to reduce by 25 per cent. the number of newly acquired HIV infections and gonorrhoea infections by the end of 2007, set out in the sexual health and HIV strategy.

  Audiology Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients aged(a) 16 to 59, (b) 60 to 75 and (c) over 75 years have been waiting for (i) less than one year, (ii) more than one year and (iii) more than two years for a hearing test at (A) the Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and (B) the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust by quarter in the last three years for which figures are available. [28844]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available in the format requested centrally.
  770W

  North Staffordshire Health Authority
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the health spending per head of population was in the North Staffordshire health authority in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01,(c)2001–02 and (d)estimated for 2002–03. [29269]

  Yvette Cooper
  Health spending per head of population in North Staffordshire health authority was £675.34 in 1999–2000 and £725.72 in 2000–01. Future estimates of spending are not available.

  Notes:

  1. In many health authorities there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include:

  the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission health care;

  asset revaluations in NHS trusts being funded through health authorities; and

  some double counting of expenditure between health authorities and primary care trusts within the health authority area.

  Expenditure on health per head cannot therefore be reliably compared between health authorities.

  Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  2.Expenditure on health is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent on the commission of health care by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of general dental services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

  3.Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be readily identified.

  Source:

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates for 1999–2000–01.

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many of his Department's PFI contracts Arthur Andersen has been an adviser; and if he will make a statement. [31720]

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the 23 major private finance initiative projects that have reached financial close, Arthur Andersen were lead financial advisers on one—Bromley Healthcare NHS Trust. Bromley reached financial close in November 1998.

  Arthur Andersen is not acting as lead financial adviser on any of the major PFI schemes currently in procurement. However, their legal arm, Andersen Legal, is acting for Stoke Mandeville NHS Trust on their scheme which is currently in procurement.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98.
  771W
  Mr. Hutton
  The monthly expenditure by the Department for the period 1 April 1997 to 31 December 2001 is shown in the table.

  £000

  Month

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  April

  3,289,571

  3,272,043

  3,981,814

  4,334,631

  4,352,192

  May

  3,363,658

  3,131,688

  3,049,401

  3,258,726

  4,279,585

  June

  2,902,421

  3,304,207

  3,568,651

  4,288,344

  4,795,583

  July

  3,289,298

  3,785,692

  3,986,260

  3,397,964

  3,971,748

  August

  3,079,196

  2,785,252

  3,922,629

  3,776,939

  5,132,307

  September

  3,425,728

  4,758,707

  3,617,399

  4,522,599

  4,247,376

  October

  3,703,245

  3,764,203

  3,597,776

  3,520,058

  4,702,310

  November

  2,680,109

  4,980,046

  3,632,962

  3,878,473

  5,208,304

  December

  3,624,934

  3,819,993

  4,375,852

  4,623,396

  5,604,820

  January

  3,239,372

  3,102,676

  3,216,403

  3,646,583

  —

  February

  3,269,260

  3,888,446

  3,857,369

  4,478,028

  —

  March

  3,827,711

  4,651,852

  4,741,358

  5,867,822

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures represent the actual monthly cash expenditure in round £000.

  2. Figures are shown gross of income receipts.

  Rape Victims
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has in place to provide support to victims of rape; and what funding he provides to support rape victims. [22448]

  Jacqui Smith
  The first step for most people will be to discuss the problem with their general medical practitioner. We have set out clear national standards in the National Service Framework for mental health. It describes how people should be able to get quicker access to more effective treatments in and through primary care, with support from specialised services where necessary. Some people may also seek help through other routes, including specialised services in the charitable and voluntary sector. We support a selection of such services each year.

  People who have been raped need access to a variety of services including forensic examination, counselling and treatment to prevent sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy. These services are provided by a number of agencies including general medical practitioners and genito-urinary medicine clinics. Counselling provision will be strengthened by the clear national standards in the National Service Framework for Mental Health.

  Breast-feeding
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to promote breast-feeding. [24446]

  Yvette Cooper
  We take very seriously our responsibility to protect infant health in the United Kingdom, and support the promotion of breast-feeding. It is important that women and their partners are able to make a fully informed choice on how to feed their babies based on accurate and consistent information. This means that women should have access to information about all infant feeding practices through the relevant health care professional.

  The Infant Feeding Initiative was established in May 1999 with the aim to increase the incidence and duration of breast-feeding among those groups of the population where breast-feeding rates are the lowest, as well as to
  772W
  help all women to make informed choices about how they feed their infant. Breast-feeding rates are low in lower socio-economic groups. A total budget of nearly £3 million over three years from Public Health Development Fund has been allocated for this initiative and reflects our commitment to tackle health inequalities that was highlighted by the Acheson report.

  It included the appointment of two part-time National Infant Feeding Advisers and funding of 79 "best practice" projects to date to enable effective communication and evaluation of current good practice, to address the barriers to breast-feeding, and thereby lead to improved breast-feeding rates among those least likely to breast-feed. This has resulted in joint working efforts between health professionals and voluntary organisations. Sure start initiatives also support local projects on breast-feeding.

  Other departmental activity includes support for an annual National Breastfeeding Awareness Week, support to four main voluntary organisations involved in the promotion of breast-feeding, research into breast-feeding through quinquennial surveys of infant feeding practices, and maintaining close links with UNICEF's Baby Friendly Initiative.

  The forthcoming Children's National Service Framework will address maternity services that can help to give all children a good start in life to grow into healthy adults.

  GPs (London)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs are practising in Greater London; and what the figure was in 1997. [24628]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is provided in the table.

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)1 and unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)2

  London region and England, 1997 and 2000

  headcount

  1997

  2000

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)

  England

  29,389

  30,252

  London Region

  4,532

  4,548

  of which:

  UPEs

  England

  27,099

  27,704

  London Region

  3,849

  3,951

  1 All Practitioners (excluding GP Retainers) include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (para 52 SFA), and PMS Other.

  2 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Note:

  GP Retainers figures were first collected in the 1999 census. In September 2000, there were 1,117 GP Retainers in England and 146 in London Region.

  1997 data have been converted to correspond with April 1999 regional boundaries.

  Data as at 1 October 1997 and 30 September 2000.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric patients who received hospital treatment in each health authority area between 1 September 2000 and 1 September 2001 waited(a) under four weeks, (b) under three months, (c) under six months,

  Waiting times for waiting list and booked admissions for all paediatric specialties NHS hospitals, England 2000–01 1

  Duration of elective wait

  Up to 4 weeks

  4 weeks to 3 months

  3–6 months

  6–8 months

  8–12 months

  12–18 months

  Over 18 months

  Hillingdon HA

  181

  63

  16

  4

  4

  1

  0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  144

  137

  68

  40

  27

  26

  0

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  279

  126

  66

  26

  17

  6

  1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  152

  86

  69

  18

  14

  2

  0

  Bedfordshire HA

  212

  93

  30

  15

  10

  2

  0

  Berkshire HA

  229

  116

  35

  10

  28

  6

  0

  Buckinghamshire HA

  641

  204

  54

  23

  21

  3

  2

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  432

  194

  71

  16

  18

  1

  0

  Bromley HA

  277

  149

  58

  14

  10

  3

  0

  Croydon HA

  302

  101

  39

  7

  16

  9

  1

  East Kent HA

  318

  88

  26

  7

  7

  1

  0

  West Kent HA

  426

  337

  101

  22

  21

  4

  0

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  137

  136

  46

  14

  16

  5

  1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,066

  619

  232

  50

  41

  11

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  507

  728

  236

  62

  50

  19

  6

  East Surrey HA

  168

  178

  68

  29

  22

  9

  1

  West Surrey HA

  158

  75

  52

  17

  16

  10

  1

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  674

  399

  229

  113

  52

  16

  1

  West Sussex HA

  311

  221

  144

  51

  36

  10

  1

  Barking and Havering HA

  101

  78

  52

  16

  4

  1

  0

  Barnet HA

  165

  101

  49

  16

  9

  3

  0

  Brent and Harrow HA

  236

  162

  67

  26

  15

  14

  0

  Camden and Islington HA

  285

  198

  102

  19

  12

  4

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  716

  229

  70

  41

  44

  18

  2

  East London and The City HA

  498

  312

  199

  45

  47

  6

  0

  North Essex HA

  157

  115

  57

  13

  10

  4

  0

  South Essex HA

  382

  181

  60

  12

  8

  4

  1

  South Lancashire HA

  96

  51

  16

  3

  5

  4

  0

  Liverpool HA

  291

  343

  126

  26

  20

  5

  1

  Manchester HA

  566

  98

  70

  27

  31

  80

  12

  Morecambe Bay HA

  96

  112

  23

  7

  4

  8

  4

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  268

  206

  59

  8

  6

  4

  0

  Salford and Trafford HA

  203

  67

  49

  14

  21

  62

  4

  Sefton HA

  181

  125

  45

  9

  5

  1

  0

  Stockport HA

  97

  29

  21

  9

  12

  29

  6

  West Pennine HA

  145

  79

  26

  14

  18

  82

  9

  Northamptonshire HA

  501

  140

  31

  12

  19

  9

  2

  Oxfordshire HA

  616

  335

  84

  19

  21

  17

  2

  Suffolk HA

  279

  149

  32

  5

  7

  5

  0

  Barnsley HA

  128

  117

  35

  4

  3

  0

  0

  North Derbyshire HA

  220

  130

  47

  6

  4

  3

  0

  South Derbyshire HA

  231

  195

  162

  84

  43

  9

  0

  Doncaster HA

  114

  109

  37

  12

  3

  0

  0

  Leicestershire HA

  328

  395

  220

  93

  29

  9

  1

  Lincolnshire HA

  113

  61

  24

  5

  8

  3

  0

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  172

  116

  30

  5

  9

  1

  0

  Nottingham HA

  389

  296

  79

  19

  27

  16

  5

  Rotherham HA

  132

  119

  34

  2

  2

  1

  0

  Sheffield HA

  1,006

  407

  123

  28

  21

  1

  0

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  577

  60

  34

  15

  14

  73

  8

  North Cheshire HA

  78

  90

  38

  4

  6

  5

  1

  South Cheshire HA

  160

  78

  39

  12

  16

  8

  4

  East Lancashire HA

  436

  82

  24

  21

  9

  52

  8

  North West Lancashire HA

  124

  53

  10

  4

  2

  7

  1

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  83

  90

  66

  20

  14

  5

  2

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  75

  110

  60

  15

  12

  4

  0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  150

  296

  231

  81

  52

  14

  9

  Isle of Wight HA

  10

  21

  22

  5

  9

  4

  1

  Somerset HA

  770

  93

  20

  5

  7

  3

  0

  South and West Devon HA

  1,561

  77

  17

  5

  2

  0

  0

  Wiltshire HA

  399

  141

  40

  14

  14

  9

  1

  Avon HA

  1,301

  507

  152

  44

  23

  0

  0

  Birmingham HA

  490

  353

  166

  46

  99

  19

  2

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  222

  38

  19

  2

  11

  34

  3

  Wirral HA

  72

  66

  28

  2

  4

  0

  0

  Bradford HA

  787

  272

  44

  15

  23

  11

  3

  774W
  (d) under eight months,(e)under 12 months,(f)under 18 months and (g) over 18 months for admission to hospital. [24627]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The data requested for the latest available period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 are in the table.
  775W

  Waiting times for waiting list and hooked admissions for all paediatric specialties NHS hospitals, England 2000–01 1

  Duration of elective wait

  Up to 4 weeks

  4 weeks to 3 months

  3–6 months

  6–8 months

  8–12 months

  12–18 months

  Over 18 months

  County Durham HA

  172

  120

  79

  25

  19

  11

  1

  East Riding HA

  517

  207

  84

  32

  35

  9

  2

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  577

  139

  19

  0

  4

  3

  1

  Leeds HA

  751

  263

  108

  41

  36

  32

  9

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  34

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  North Cumbria HA

  22

  16

  6

  7

  10

  2

  0

  South Humber HA

  93

  63

  26

  3

  4

  0

  0

  Northumberland HA

  12

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland HA

  611

  170

  62

  1

  3

  1

  0

  Tees HA

  30

  9

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield HA

  372

  49

  28

  3

  5

  14

  2

  North Yorkshire HA

  675

  132

  55

  17

  15

  16

  3

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  463

  81

  36

  16

  12

  9

  2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  283

  54

  13

  4

  5

  0

  0

  Dorset HA

  214

  137

  101

  19

  10

  6

  1

  North and East Devon HA

  104

  45

  24

  9

  5

  3

  0

  Gloucestershire HA

  970

  161

  48

  10

  12

  4

  0

  Coventry HA

  79

  43

  16

  7

  5

  1

  0

  Dudley HA

  70

  38

  21

  3

  5

  2

  0

  Herefordshire HA

  127

  70

  18

  2

  3

  3

  0

  Sandwell HA

  187

  59

  26

  7

  9

  4

  0

  Shropshire Ha

  247

  50

  22

  3

  3

  1

  1

  Solihull HA

  40

  25

  7

  2

  4

  5

  0

  North Staffordshire HA

  785

  50

  15

  3

  5

  6

  0

  South Staffordshire HA

  970

  186

  48

  12

  11

  5

  0

  Walsall HA

  200

  78

  41

  6

  8

  6

  0

  Warwickshire HA

  110

  90

  29

  4

  15

  3

  0

  Wolverhampton HA

  733

  35

  4

  1

  4

  3

  0

  Worcestershire HA

  177

  116

  29

  11

  9

  5

  0

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  172

  89

  36

  14

  12

  0

  0

  West Hertfordshire HA

  165

  101

  53

  9

  15

  6

  0

  Cambridge HA

  223

  129

  32

  2

  6

  2

  0

  Norfolk HA

  368

  537

  76

  10

  9

  0

  1

  1 1 April to 31 March

  Notes:

  1. Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards the suspension from hospital waiting lists of patients recovering from the first stage of a bilateral procedure. [25499]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Patients who are recovering from the first stage of a bilateral operation should not be suspended from the waiting list but should be placed on the planned list.

  Antidepressants
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the side effects of tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; and what evidence he has collated on their impact on suicidal tendencies in their users. [25436]

  Ms Blears
  Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are effective medicines in the treatment of depression, features of which may include suicidal behaviour. It is known that 776W
  features of depression, including suicidal behaviour, can worsen after introduction of any antidepressant prior to its beneficial effect being apparent.

  As with all medicines the safety of TCAs and selective SSRIs is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The safety profiles of TCAs and SSRIs are well established and are reflected in the product information for prescribers and patients.

  Reports of adverse effects, including suicidal behaviour, suspected to be associated with SSRIs and TCAs are collated by MCA/CSM through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the yellow card scheme. These data are reviewed on a regular basis.

  A possible causal association between SSRIs and suicidal behaviour has been reviewed by the CSM on a number of occasions, most recently in 2001. The CSM concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to confirm a causal association between SSRIs and suicidal behaviour and advised that the issue should be kept under review.
  777W
  The product information and the British National Formulary warn that patients should be closely monitored for suicidal impulses, particularly in the early stages of treatment. An article emphasising this advice was published in the MCA/CSM drug safety bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in September 2000.

  International Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 647W, on international recruitment, by what means he monitors the results of the international recruitment and regional international recruitment co-ordinators; and if he will publish the names of the international nursing recruitment agencies who fail to adhere to his guidance. [28881]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: International recruitment is monitored by the international recruitment co-ordinators who work closely with the national

  NHS trust tangible fixed assets—net book value as at 31 March 2001

  £000

  NHS trust code

  NHS trust name

  Land

  Buildings, installations and fittings

  RGT

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  21,243

  99,308

  RDD

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospital NHS Trust

  23,135

  58,525

  RCP

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Service Trust

  4,070

  31,496

  RMB

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley NHS Trust

  5,095

  73,620

  RMR

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  5,303

  53,338

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  9,373

  85,701

  RGA

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,376

  21,926

  RCV

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,490

  117,702

  RFS

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital Trust

  8,150

  37,033

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  5,645

  76,452

  RJR

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  6,064

  36,581

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  22,507

  84,159

  RDU

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  9,900

  47,757

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services NHS Trust

  8,359

  57,213

  RJZ

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  21,356

  108,796

  RC9

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  6,887

  35,855

  RQ8

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  45,921

  78,138

  RTX

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  10,481

  111,631

  RMI

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust

  2,492

  4,258

  RVW

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  7,595

  73,964

  RNS

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  15,152

  60,348

  RBZ

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  9,172

  39,126

  RTF

  Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  14,619

  116,072

  RGN

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  4,454

  24,064

  RQW

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  16,000

  34,386

  RG2

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  16,813

  10,432

  RH8

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  21,431

  94,218

  RK5

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,504

  41,003

  RA9

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  21,906

  72,567

  RTA

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  6,558

  43,184

  RE9

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  6,523

  51,546

  RTG

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  12,313

  103,241

  RBA

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  11,448

  77,073

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,400

  29,101

  RN1

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  24,010

  62,879

  Source:

  NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 2000–01

  Hospital Performance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the effect of under investment and (b) the poor performance of
  778W
  Health service employers recruiting internationally. Their role is to ensure that the code of practice is followed and that developing countries are not targeted for international recruitment by providing guidance and advice directly to NHS trusts. The director of international recruitment reviews this process monthly.

  Recruitment agencies who fail to adhere to the code of practice will not be used by NHS organisations.

  NHS Assests
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if he will list for each three star NHS trust in England the estimated value of assets held in(a) land and (b) buildings at the latest date for which figures are available. [28671]

  MsBlears
  The table shows the estimated net book value of three star national health service trust's(a) land and (b) buildings installaitons and fittings as at 31 March 2001.

  management with regard to persistently failing NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [29397]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service performance ratings for acute trusts were published in September 2001. The ratings show that hospitals of a similar size perform
  779W
  differently. Variations in performance are largely down to hospital management teams. The direct effect of funding levels on performance has not been used in deciding the ratings, although maintaining financial balance is a key target.

  The poorest performing, zero star trusts, have submitted performance improvement plans to the Department. These are being reviewed and will subsequently be monitored. The modernisation agency is playing a full role in this process, to bring the performance of these trusts up to a level that patients have the right to expect.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take into account(a) social, (b) economic and (c) demographic data when assessing an NHS hospital's (i) success and (ii) failure rate. [29396]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service performance ratings for acute trusts, published in September 2001, were based on areas of performance that are under the influence of hospital managers. Where appropriate, the performance indicators used in the assessment are standardised to take into account the age and sex of patients to make meaningful comparisons between hospital trusts.

  Drop-in Body Scans
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposal by private firms to offer drop-in body scans claiming to identify cancer and heart disease; and what(a) checks and (b) licensing a company must undergo to ensure that such a service is (i) reliable and (ii) effective. [27853]

  Yvette Cooper
  From 1 April this year the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) will take over from health authorities the regulation of independent health care providers under the Care Standards Act 2000. For the first time, owners and managers of independent drop-in medical services and exclusively private general practitioners offering primary care or diagnostic services to the public will be obliged to register with the NCSC, comply with regulations and meet core and service-specific national minimum standards.

  Treatment and diagnostic services provided solely by registered nurses or other non-medical health professionals will not be required to register with the NCSC. However, under the Care Standards Act my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers to make regulations to bring services not initially regulated by the National Care Standards Commission under regulation at a future date.

  Other specific legislation requires that all medical exposures to ionising radiation, such as X-rays or CT scans, whether undertaken in the national health service or private sector must be justified.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the level of funding for health action zones for the financial year 2003–04. [30340]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 389W.
  780W

  Staff Shortages
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment has been made of staff shortages of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, and (c) scientific personnel in the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority; and if he will make a statement. [30276]

  Ms Blears
  We are aware of the difficulties that have been faced by trusts in the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire area in recruiting doctors, nurses and scientific personnel. A task force has been established locally, to look at staffing needs across the health authority. Details of local initiatives to recruit staff will be available from the chairmen of the health authority and national health service trusts.

  Information collected centrally on staff vacancies is published on the Department's website.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the purchase by health authorities of wheelchairs and mobility products made in Britain; [30339]

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that the wheelchairs and mobility products purchased by health authorities meet British fire safety standards. [30336]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency has negotiated a national contract for powered and manual wheelchairs (for England). The wheelchairs supplied under this contract conform to all relevant British and European safety standards.

  Although health authorities and NHS trusts are expected to use this national contract they do have the freedom to purchase from different suppliers, depending on local circumstances. It is therefore their responsibility to ensure the contracts conform to all relevant British and European safety standards.

  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the level of safety standards on wheelchair and mobility products being purchased by health authorities. [30337]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Devices Agency, (MDA), maintains a database of all incidents reported to them concerning safety or quality problems with wheelchairs. MDA regularly carry out trend analysis on the content of reports received from United Kingdom, Europe and United States of America and also on the outcomes of any subsequent investigations. If these trends reveal the need for individual manufacturers to re-design their products or improve their usage instructions, labelling, repair instructions or quality control etc manufacturers are informed and MDA monitor the situation until appropriate improvements are made. Also, if any of these trends reveal a shortcoming in an issued British standard concerning wheelchairs or a need for a new standard, the MDA work with the British Standards Institution, (BSI), to make any necessary revisions or assist with the drafting of any new standard.

  MDA maintain regular contact with the Purchasing and Supply Agency to ensure that they can consider any possible effects on existing or future purchase agreements.
  781W
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he takes to monitor the safety and quality of wheelchairs purchased by health authorities. [30338]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Devices Agency, (MDA), has specific responsibility on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to safeguard public health where medical devices are involved. MDA has an established wide ranging reporting system, which is open to users, carers and health care staff etc who wish to report safety or quality problems concerning medical devices. Within the Medical Device Regulations manufacturers are legally bound to report to MDA on any serious safety problems concerning their devices. MDA also carry out pro-active investigations on a range of manufacturers to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements of the regulations.

  Within this overall remit, MDA has a specific unit responsible for wheeled mobility devices where all reported incidents concerning the quality or safety of wheelchairs are considered. If the unit's investigation highlights a need for an improvement in a wheelchair's design, usage instructions or manufacturing process then appropriate action is taken with the manufacturer/supplier.

  Huntington's Disease
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specialist facilities are available for sufferers of Huntington's disease in(a) Northumberland, (b) Durham, (c) Cumbria, (d) North Yorkshire, (e) East Riding of Yorkshire, (f) Lincolnshire, (g) Norfolk, (h)Suffolk, (i) Essex, (j) Cambridgeshire, (k) Buckinghamshire, (1) Herefordshire, (m) Oxfordshire, (n) Berkshire, (o) Wiltshire, (p) Gloucestershire, (g) Hampshire, (r) Somerset, (s) Kent, (t) Sussex, (u) Isle of Wight, (v) Dorset, (w) Devon and (x) Cornwall. [30404]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on local service configuration in England, such as the availability of specialist facilities for patients with Huntington's disease, is not collected centrally. It is a decision for health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders, to assess the health needs of their populations, including those with Huntington's disease, and to commission services to meet those needs.

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with the Scottish

  Finished consultant episodes (FCE) by main diagnosis, age group and average age—NHS hospitals, England 2000–01

  Age

  Diagnosis

  0–4

  10–14

  15–44

  45–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Not known

  Median

  Total

  S00 superficial injury of head

  1,835

  1,931

  3,630

  967

  536

  1,214

  1,248

  18

  27

  11,379

  S01 open wound of head

  4,877

  3,642

  8,567

  2,753

  1,172

  2,191

  2,652

  29

  28

  25,883

  S02 fracture of skull and facial bones

  1,549

  2,924

  19,226

  2,842

  640

  711

  408

  18

  25

  28,318

  S03 dislocation sprain and strain of joints and ligaments of head

  77

  62

  120

  15

  8

  22

  10

  0

  18

  314

  S04 injury of cranial nerves

  5

  3

  43

  13

  4

  0

  0

  0

  32

  68

  S05 injury of eye and orbit

  157

  527

  1,440

  454

  175

  245

  232

  0

  33

  3,230

  S06 intracranial injury

  772

  1,360

  4,664

  2,100

  990

  1,246

  739

  21

  38

  11,892

  S07 crushing injury of head

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  40

  5

  S08 traumatic amputation of part of head

  1

  5

  92

  9

  5

  4

  7

  0

  31

  123

  S09 other and unspecified injuries of head

  6,279

  7,964

  13,974

  4,150

  1,624

  2,587

  2,562

  35

  23

  39,175

  Total

  15,552

  18,418

  51,759

  13,304

  5,154

  8,221

  7,858

  121

  26

  120,387

  782W
  Executive on the functions currently carried out in Scotland by the National Radiological Protection Board after the formation of the National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency; [30686]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Scotland Office regarding the proposals for the disbanding of the National Radiological Protection Board and its amalgamation into the NICHP; [30690]

  (3) what consultations the Chief Medical Officer had with agencies in Scotland prior to making his recommendations on the National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency. [30688]

  Yvette Cooper
  Discussions are taking place between the Department and the Scottish Executive about how the proposals will affect Scotland. These discussions include consideration of how the functions currently exercised in Scotland by the National Radiological Protection Board might be affected by the proposed creation of the National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency.

  Infectious Diseases
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the report, Getting Ahead of the Curve-A Strategy for Combating Infectious Diseases. [30685]

  Yvette Cooper
  The strategy includes a commitment to have updated plans in place by the end of 2002 for health care associated infection; tuberculosis; antimicrobial resistance; and blood-borne and sexually transmitted viruses. We hope to set up the new National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency at the latest by 1 April 2003, and will be working to have other elements of the strategy in place as soon as possible. Preparation of the strategy took account of a wide range of views, and we shall consult further as we work up the details of how to take particular components of the strategy forward.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average age was of an individual sustaining a head injury in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [30797]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the information requested for the year 2000–01.
  783W
  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital. Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the classifications for determining the severity of a head injury are. [30787]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Glasgow Coma Scale is the most widely used system for classifying the severity of head injuries. This scale assigns points to each patient based upon three categories: verbal function, eye opening, and best motor (movement) response. Additional information on severity is provided by X-ray and from CT and MR scans.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) by main diagnosis NHS hospitals, England 1995–96 to 2000–01

  S00-S09 Injuries to the head

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  S00 Superficial injury of head

  9,731

  10,829

  11,000

  10,875

  12,293

  11,379

  S01 Open wound of head

  20,180

  23,186

  23,824

  23,668

  27,184

  25,883

  S02 Fracture of skull and facial bones

  29,839

  31,419

  30,265

  27,837

  30,825

  28,318

  S03 Dislocation sprain and strain of joints and ligaments of head

  317

  381

  367

  410

  349

  314

  S04 Injury of cranial nerves

  78

  63

  94

  96

  106

  68

  S05 Injury of eye and orbit

  3,655

  3,503

  3,320

  3,255

  3,591

  3,230

  S06 Intracranial injury

  23,226

  20,036

  16,529

  11,942

  12,790

  11,892

  S07 Crushing injury of head

  30

  16

  11

  19

  16

  5

  S08 Traumatic amputation of part of head

  127

  116

  102

  111

  123

  123

  S09 Other and unspecified injuries of head

  40,912

  42,193

  41,102

  40,163

  43,271

  39,175

  Total

  128,096

  131,742

  126,615

  118,376

  130,548

  120,387

  Notes:

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

  2. Data for 1995–96 to 1997–98 are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  3. 1998–99 to 2000–01 data are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the National Service Framework for long-term conditions will cover vocational rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injury. [30837]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has said that the National Service Framework (NSF) for long-term conditions will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease and brain and spinal injury.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will change the Government's response to the Health Committee's Third report of Session 2000–01 into Rehabilitation Following Head Injury, to take account of criticism from(a) Headway, (b) Rehab UK and (c) other organisations. [30839]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are aware of the concerns expressed by Headway, Rehab UK and others about our response to the Health Committee's report. We do not, however, intend to change our response as there are a number of initiatives under way that will help improve services for people with head injury. These include the National Service Framework on long term conditions and the clinical guideline for the initial assessment, management
  784W
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reclassify brain injury rehabilitation as a specialist service within the NHS. [30786]

  Jacqui Smith
  Rehabilitation for brain injuries is already defined as a specialised service, ie it has a planning population larger than the total population of several primary care teams and sometimes larger than the population of a strategic health authority. It was included in the National Specialised Services Definitions Set published by the Department on its website in December 2001.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individuals have sustained a head injury in each of the past five years. [30796]

  Jacqui Smith
  Around one million people a year receive a head injury in the UK, and over 100,000 of those attend hospital. We have hospital activity data on the number and type of injuries as shown in the table:

  and first referral of patients with head injury that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been asked to produce.

  We think that it is better to invest time to appraise the existing service configuration of head injury services across the national health service, so that we can get it right for the future.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of individuals who survived a head injury who(a) returned to work within a year, (b) return to work within five years and (c) never returned to work in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [30798]

  Jacqui Smith
  No assessment has been made of the percentage of head injured individuals who return to work.

  We are keen to help ensure that disabled people, including those with head injury, are able to return to work whenever possible. Currently local authorities are taking the lead on joint investment plans on the Welfare to Work for disabled people initiative. The idea of these plans is to provide effective and joined up services for disabled people who want to work, to stay in work, or to move closer to the world of work.
  785W
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce further measures to simplify the funding streams available to organisations offering vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with acquired brain injury. [30785]

  Jacqui Smith
  The final stages of the process of rehabilitation for people who have acquired brain injury may be an individualised programme of employment rehabilitation delivered through the employment service's work preparation programme. The employment service has worked with the organisations delivering work preparation for people with brain injuries to produce a national framework. This will result in greater coherence within regions and countries in terms of the scope and duration of its individualised programmes.

  Silicone Cosmesis
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated by his Department to individual health authorities in the(a) current and (b) previous financial years for the provision of silicone cosmesis; and what monitoring procedures exist to ensure that the funds are used to provide cosmesis for amputees. [30792]

  Jacqui Smith
  On the 9 January 2001 we announced that funding totalling £4 million to provide silicone cosmesis to prosthetic limb users was to be made available over the next three years. The funding started with £0.5 million for 2001–02, £1.5 million for 2002–03 and £2 million for 2003–04. This was an addition to the baseline allocations to individual health authorities.

  Each local health authority will provide funding to individual disablement service centres (DSCs) to provide silicone cosmesis. To support this initiative officials in my Department wrote, on 12 December 2001, to all health authorities reminding them that this funding has been provided to them in their allocations.

  The contract for purchasing silicone cosmesis covers was awarded on 1 October 2001 and the contractor is required to provide the NHS purchasing and supply agency with quarterly contract sales figures which will include:

  total sales figure in £s

  £s spent by each DSC

  what span of products are purchased.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to the answer of 14 January 2002,Official Report, columns 63–64W, on health authority expenditure, if he will publish the latest forecast outturn for 2001–02 for each health authority and NHS trust in the south-east region of England; [30557]

  (2) if he will place in the Library details of the savings in expenditure which the NHS south-east regional executive is requiring each trust and health authority to make by 31 March; and if he will make a statement on the implications of those savings for the services and the capital expenditure programmes of each trust and health authority. [31548]
  786W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 25 January and 29 January 2002]: Health bodies in the south-east reported in mid January a projected overspend at the end of the financial year of £60 million. Support is being provided to ensure that this can be managed without any adverse effect on patient care principally through brokerage from elsewhere in the national health service. This is normal practice in managing the year-end financial position. Discussions will therefore be ongoing, with the financial position being closely monitored right up to the end of the financial year.

  Autism
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many psychiatrists are employed by the NHS to diagnose and treat autistic spectrum children; [30988]

  (2) what plans he has to allow autistic spectrum children to receive their social communication assessments in the private sector when they have waited longer than 12 months in the NHS; [30985]

  (3) what the waiting time has been for a social communication assessment on autistic spectrum children by psychiatrists in the last year for which figures are available; [30987]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the Royal College of Psychology concerning the effect of delay in diagnosis on the eventual outcome for autistic spectrum children. [30986]

  Jacqui Smith
  Diagnosis of autism and early interventions are being considered by an independent group chaired by Professor Ann Le Couteur which is expected to report in 2002. The Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and Paediatrics and Child Health, the National Autistic Society and the British Psychological Society are all represented. The Department and the Department for Education and Skills both have observers on the group. We will consider what further discussions may be required in the light of the group's report.

  As we develop the National Service Framework (NSF) for children we will consider the needs of disabled children, including those with autism. The NSF will set out to tackle inequalities, raise standards and reduce unacceptable variations in NHS and social services. We have recently announced that one of the exemplars we will use to show how services should be provided will be around services for children with autism.

  The data requested on numbers of psychiatrists and waiting times for assessments are not collected centrally. We recognise that assessment of communication skills plays an important part in the diagnosis of autism. This requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency assessment and may be led by a consultant community paediatrician or a child and adolescent psychiatrist. In some places specialist learning disability psychiatrists offer a service to children as well as adults and they, rather than child and adolescent psychiatrists, will be involved in diagnosis and management of children with autism. All these professionals have a broad range of responsibilities. The proportion of their time devoted to diagnosis and treatment of autism will vary. In the three years ending 31 March 2002 we will have invested some £85 million in children and adolescent mental health services across the national health service and local authorities.
  787W
  We have no objection in principle to involving the private sector in assessment processes at whatever stage may be appropriate. Local statutory authorities have a duty to ensure that the particular health and social care needs of each person with autism are met with genuine choices for both clients and families, through the most appropriate community based services, in a cost-effective way. They should determine the pattern of services in their areas in the light of their knowledge of local needs.

  Overhead Power Cables
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of cases of(a) leukaemia, (b)skin cancer and (c) lung cancer which may be attributed to overhead power cables near places of residence. [30752]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including the extremely low frequency fields (ELF) associated with overhead power cables, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).

  In March last year, the NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) issued a report on "ELF Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer". This was issued following a wide-ranging and thorough review of scientific research related to this issue. The group concluded that the power frequency electromagnetic fields that exist in the vast majority of homes are not a cause of cancer in general. However, some epidemiological studies do indicate a possible doubling of the risk of childhood leukaemia associated with exposure to unusually high levels of power frequency magnetic fields. The AGNIR found no clear evidence of a carcinogenic effect in adults or of a plausible explanation from experiments on animals or isolated cells. Their view was that the epidemiological evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion that such fields cause leukaemia in children.

  The board of NRPB issued a statement following publication of the AGNIR report. This indicated that if the doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children with exposures to magnetic fields above 0.4 T (400 nanotesla) was causal then an additional two cases of childhood leukaemia might be caused each year in the UK in addition to the 500 cases that would arise from other causes. Possibly one case every two years would be due to proximity to powerlines. There is no clear evidence of effects of magnetic fields on other cancers in children or of any cancers in adults. The AGNIR is, however, examining the possible effects on health of corona ions generated by powerlines. A number of concerns have been raised by members of the academic community in the United Kingdom that corona ions may have an influence on the behaviour of pollutant aerosols and cause an increase in exposure which could cause increases in risk of cancer or other diseases.

  Midwifery
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the availability of funding for full-time midwifery degrees in Scotland from August on the numbers of English students registering for courses in(a) England and (b) Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [30362]
  788W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Midwifery courses are oversubscribed in both countries and we do not envisage any unfavourable impact from the re-organisation of funding in Scotland.

  Work force development confederations will continue to work with the universities, with whom they have contracted midwifery education, to ensure suitable applicants fill all the available places in England.

  Meningitis
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffered from group C meningitis and septicaemia in each year since 1997 in each health region. [31333]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of laboratory confirmed cases of Group C meningococcal disease between 1997 and 2001 are shown in the table.

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001 1

  Eastern

  47

  54

  61

  70

  25

  London

  99

  91

  127

  132

  57

  North-west

  146

  143

  204

  109

  46

  Northern and Yorkshire

  115

  133

  153

  79

  36

  South-east

  105

  100

  116

  102

  39

  South-west

  77

  59

  60

  41

  26

  Trent

  104

  109

  110

  69

  51

  West midlands

  69

  77

  79

  74

  19

  England total

  762

  766

  910

  676

  299

  1 2001 data are highly provisional

  Food Imports
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the regulation of food imports. [29541]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: All imports of products of animal origin, such as meat and dairy products, to the United Kingdom from countries outside of the European Union are subject to harmonised EU import controls. All such imports must enter the UK through designated border inspection posts where they undergo documentary and identity checks and a proportion are subject to physical checks. Food which is not of animal origin, such as fruit and vegetables, from countries outside of the EU is subject to import controls under UK national legislation and is subject to checks on the basis of risk assessment by local port health authorities and local food authorities at the point of entry to the UK.

  Food coming to the UK from other EU member states is in free circulation within the EU and is not subject to routine checks at UK ports. Such food can be subject to import checks where there is information to support such action.

  Once admitted to the UK, all imported food may be subject to the same checks at retail level by local authorities in the same way as those applicable to UK produced food.

  The Board of the Food Standards Agency recently approved a report containing a number of proposals aimed at improving the co-ordination of enforcement action on imports and the effectiveness of inspection of import controls. Agency officials are exploring these proposals further and will report back to the board.

  Health Authorities (London)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest forecasts are of the(a) underspending or ovespending for the present financial year, (b) funding pressures which impact on the 2002–03 planning round and (c) deficits in the local health economy in each health authority in London submitted to the London regional office.

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: By the end of this financial year we expect all health authorities to live within their agreed resource limits. Where they require support at year-end, this will be provided principally through brokerage from elsewhere in the national health service. This is normal practice in managing the year end financial position of individual bodies and for the NHS overall.

  The London regional office is in discussions with health authorities and trusts about managing their 2001–02 year-end positions. The London region forecasts financial balance.

  Information on 2002–03 is not available.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the £7 million research funding on mobile phones will be used to examine the safety of mobile phone masts. [31812]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: The mobile telephone health research (MTHR) programme that has recently been announced follows from the publication of a report in May 2000 by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE on "Mobile Phones and Health". Radio signals from handsets were identified as a research priority because local exposures of people using phones are in general appreciably higher than exposures to the whole body from base stations. In both cases, however, exposures need to comply with exposure guidelines.

  The first group of proposals agreed for funding by the programme management committee has generally related to the areas of research identified in the Stewart report. Although the main focus of much of the funded research relates to the use of mobile phones, in practice many of the experimental studies will also be valuable in providing evidence on any possible effects on people of exposures to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from base stations. The agreed programme includes a study on exposures from the newer types of base station that are being introduced in urban areas. Details of research now approved for funding are given on the MTHR website at www.mthr.org.uk.

  A second call for proposals was issued last year with a deadline for submission of outline proposals of Friday 25 January 2002. The aim of this call was to extend the range of research being carried out in the MTHR programme. One aim of this call was to seek further proposals for volunteer studies that will examine possible effects of RF exposure of people. The proposals have yet to be considered but it is expected that some of the proposals will be of direct relevance to exposures to RF radiation from base stations.
  790W

  Royal Sussex County Hospital
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the findings of the Commission for Health improvements investigations at the Royal Sussex County hospital, Brighton. [31842]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) itself publishes the findings of its independent clinical governance reviews, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  We understand that CHI's clinical governance review report for Brighton health care national health service trust which includes the Royal Sussex County hospital will be published shortly.

  GP Services (Isle of Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisation will be responsible for the GP after hours service on the Isle of Sheppey after the present contract comes to an end. [31847]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: No decision has yet been made by Swale Primary Care Group on the provision of out of hours general practitioner services when the current arrangement with Healthcall ends in March.

  Hospices
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake a review into the way children's hospices are funded with special reference to the funding regime and level of funding given to adult hospices; and if he will make a statement. [31236]

  Yvette Cooper
  The mechanism for obtaining health service funding is essentially the same for children's and adult hospices. There is a process of negotiation between hospice service providers and the commissioners of health services from areas served by individual hospices.

  In some areas, services for children with life threatening illnesses are more developed than in others. Regional offices of the Department are working with health professionals and agencies to review current service provision for children and any gaps in provision with a view to a better strategic fit.

  As we develop the National Service Framework for children we will also consider the needs of disabled children, including those whose disability is sadly, of a life threatening nature and for whom respite care at a children's hospice is the option of choice. In the meantime, and within the next two months, the New Opportunities Fund will invite applications for funding for projects in support of children with life threatening illnesses. Children's hospices are eligible to apply.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when his departmental budget received the new money for hospices announced in the Chancellor's last Budget; when he(a) intends to and (b) has delivered this to hospices, and in what form; and if he will make a statement; [32145]
  791W
  (2) on what date the money he announced for hospices in his last Budget was provided to his Department's budget; [32141]

  (3) when the new money for hospices announced in the last Budget will be paid directly to hospices. [32150]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last Budget, on 8 March 2001, did not include an announcement of new money for hospices. Funding to increase investment in specialist palliative care was included in the resources to support implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan. The overall increased investment for implementing the Cancer Plan includes an additional £50 million for specialist palliative care by 2004. This investment is intended to help tackle inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the national health service to increase their contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. This will mean that NHS investment in specialist palliative services will match that of the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons hospices for children receive less financial support per patient from Government than hospices for adults; and if he will take steps to bring funding for the two into line. [30835]

  Yvette Cooper
  Children's hospices are a relatively new concept in the overall provision of services for children with life threatening illnesses. In some cases the role they play in local provision is not as well established as that of adult hospices. They need to consult with and establish links with the commissioners of health care provision within their catchment area in order to secure funding.

  In order to assist this process, we issued guidance in February 1998, "Evaluation of the Pilot Project Programme for Children with Life Threatening Illnesses" which addresses the range of options available, including hospice care. In addition, regional offices of the Department have been asked to work with health professionals and agencies to identify current service provision and any gaps in this provision, with a view to encouraging a better strategic fit.

  As we develop the National Service Framework (NSF) for children we will consider the needs of disabled children, including those whose disability is sadly of a life threatening nature and for whom respite care at a children's hospice is the option of choice. In the meantime, and within the next two months, the New Opportunities Fund will be inviting applications for funding for projects in support of children with life threatening illnesses. Children's hospices are eligible to apply.

  NHS Structural Reform
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact on Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority of the structural reforms proposed for the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [30277]
  792W
  Ms Blears
  With effect from 1 April 2002, the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority (the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authorities were merged in April 2001) will become part of the larger Hampshire and Isle of Wight health authority. Subject to the decision of Parliament, this will become one of 28 new strategic health authorities in October 2002.

  These changes are part of our drive to shift the balance of power to the front line in the national health service. Under them, the responsibilities of the current regional offices of the Department will be devolved to the new health authorities, and those of the current health authorities to primary care trusts.

  Organ Donors
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase public awareness of donor cards and the Donor Registry. [30956]

  Yvette Cooper
  There have been numerous wide-ranging initiatives in England to raise the public's awareness of the shortage of organs for transplantation. The Department runs a public information campaign with a current annual budget of £900,000. A public information leaflet, incorporating the organ donor card is widely distributed, and is also available through the organ donor literature line. The campaign is further enhanced by securing free TV airtime for short public information films, a campaign website and partnerships and arrangements with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, The Passport Agency, rotarian clubs, Boots the Chemist and some banks who have chosen organ donation as a cause to support.

  The Department runs a special campaign to raise awareness among members of the Asian community. This includes short TV films featuring well-known Asian personalities and leaflets in various languages. Awareness is also raised by maintaining a presence at cultural and religious events, and by facilitation of debate on this issue at forums set up within Asian communities. Phase three of this campaign was launched in September 2001.

  A similar campaign targeting the African and African-Caribbean communities is planned for launch in spring 2002. The campaign will feature a public information leaflet, targeted advertising and public relations.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to encourage councils to include organ donor registration forms in their electoral registration form. [31349]

  Jacqui Smith
  We fully support the initiative by local councils to encourage their local populations to join the national health service organ donor register by including a letter and form with the annual council mailing for the electoral register. The scheme has already proved successful in many areas and we believe that it owes its success to the fact that it is locally inspired and embraces the local community spirit.
  793W
  Last year, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of States for Health and for the Home Department wrote jointly to the chairmen of the Association of Electoral Administrators and SOLACE's Electoral Matters Panel inviting them to encourage their members to distribute organ donor leaflets via the electoral canvass. While the Home Secretary has no powers to direct electoral registration officers to send out non-electoral material, the aim is to encourage councils to join this initiative which demonstrates how effective a truly local appeal can be.
  794W
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce an opt-out scheme for organ donorship. [31348]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no plans to introduce an opt-out scheme for organ donation. We are in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of the law governing the taking, removal and use of human tissue, and will be issuing a consultation paper shortly.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Student Finance
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they are proposing to publish their new proposals on student finance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we expect to announce the outcome of the review of student finance soon. We shall consult on any proposals for change.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that the outcome of the review will be announced soon. As the Minister will know, the matter has caused considerable havoc among students. Last summer. having discovered how unpopular their regime of tuition fees was, the Government backtracked and suggested they were opting for a graduate tax, then for the Cubie proposals. Now it looks as if they will increase tuition fees for better off students. That leaves students very uncertain about whether they would be better off going to university next September or taking a gap year. Cannot the Minister give us a clearer reply as to precisely when the outcome of the review will be announced?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there has been a huge amount of press speculation but it is entirely that—press speculation. We shall announce the review as soon as we are in a position to give this House and students the information that they require. The noble Baroness will be aware that we have said that students looking to apply for next year should do so on the basis of the current system.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although it is extremely welcome that the Government have conceded that their current system of student finance is simply not working, it is important that any system introduced in the future does not continue to discourage young people from poorer families, particularly those who constitute the first generation of their families to enter higher education from doing so? They should be encouraged by the finance system to enter higher education and not be discouraged as they currently are.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness may know, the aims of the review are to simplify the system especially in the area of hardship
452
support, to provide more upfront support for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, to ensure that all students have access to sufficient financial support throughout their years in higher education and to tackle the problems of debt and the perception of debt. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that those areas fit entirely with what she was asking about.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister refers to sufficient financial support, does she understand that that must mean sufficient financial support to be a full-time student and not have to spend 12 or 14 hours a week making money? Does she understand further that much of the non-vocational information in a university course is useful, like a climbing frame, for evaluating critical responses to conflicting evidence? Once undergraduates are reduced by the pressure of the need to earn money to learning one single account by rote, we risk being in a situation where all the money spent on giving them a university education is wasted.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords. the noble Earl makes important points, but the information from the MORI poll findings suggests that something like 46 per cent of full-time students in 1998–99 were employed during term time. That has not changed significantly from 1995–96. The figures show that at the present time around 40 per cent plus are working during term time. We recognise that this is about balancing and making sure that we have the right system in place. That is why we have taken the time to try to carry out the review effectively.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what on earth she proposes to do about this state of affairs?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we propose to come forward from the review with ideas upon which we shall consult.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the MORI report that the Minister has just mentioned which indicates that poorer students are being burdened with a much higher percentage of debt than more affluent students? Indeed, during the past year that gap has widened. Does the Minister agree that there will be a problem as regards the Government's target of wider access to universities if they do not at the same time ensure that those universities have the means to manage that expansion?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness refers to the Unite/MORI report which referred to a 26 per cent increase in debt. However, that does not compare like with like as last year many students still had a part grant, part loan system. The biggest increase is predicted among students from C2DE backgrounds—I understand that the figure is about £9,376—as they have less family income on which they can call. That is one of the issues

453
under consideration in the review of student support. I believe that significantly larger figures of up to £15,000 have been quoted in the press. Those are inaccurate. We shall, of course, have to consider universities' ability to take the numbers of students we predict will apply. That is all part of the review.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the review consider the fee regime as between part-time and full-time students? At the moment the fee regime for part-time students is far less favourable than that for full-time students and therefore in that sense inhibits those from lower social classes from applying for part-time courses. Can the Minister tell us anything about that?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the review will consider the whole question of higher education. I am sure that consideration will be given to the most appropriate way forward for all students and that the review will take account of the need to deal with the issues I have raised and the many comments that noble Lords have raised not only in this House but also directly with the department.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the information released by Universities UK 10 days ago, any relief given to students cannot be at the cost of the universities but that the Exchequer will have to dip its hands into its pockets?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I must repeat that all the issues, including that which Universities UK has raised—Universities UK has, of course, played a prominent role in submitting evidence to the review—will be considered.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister have confidence in the figures in the Unite/MORI report or is there an element of under-reporting?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, MORI is a very reputable organisation which carries out a huge amount of research. I should not wish to suggest anything. Of course, issues will arise as to what may or may not be included in any poll. My reading of the report was that it was carried out on the basis of a reasonably good piece of work.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, there is not only a public interest but a considerable private interest on the part of the graduate in obtaining a good degree because it results, I believe, in an average of £400,000 of additional income in the course of a lifetime. Therefore, what are the Government's plans for arranging for a contribution or a graduate tax of some kind to enable that to be recognised?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there has been much speculation about the type of approach that we shall take. All those issues will be deliberated.
454
We have always said that we need to recognise that those who benefit from a university education generally do better. I say "generally"; it does not apply to everyone. We also recognise that that point needs to be recognised to some extent in the course of the review.

Alcohol Advertising
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider limiting the form and content of alcohol advertising.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government work closely with the drinks industry to ensure that advertising is socially responsible. The current voluntary arrangements are working well but we are always willing to consider any new proposals which might encourage sensible alcohol consumption.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reasonably helpful reply. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that all students drink? It is an intrinsic and pleasurable part of student existence. Is he also aware that Dundee Students Union, of which I am proud to have been a member, as was my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, has a sensible drinking policy but that it has recently become concerned about a new trend of excessive drinking and bingeing? It wonders whether anything can be done to help to stop that.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I recollect that drinking was an important part of university life, although it has not yet reached the status of an entry requirement. I am also aware that Dundee Students Union has a commendable policy of drawing attention to the seriousness of "binge drinking", as I believe it is called. The Government share the concern about excessive amounts of alcohol being consumed in a short period of time. I should be even more impressed with Dundee Students Union if it were to pass on its policy to its four bars, which promote happy hours each day.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the amount of alcohol consumed by 11 to 16 year-olds has more than doubled over the past decade? I declare an interest as having been the possessor, as it were, of two children falling into that bracket. Is he also aware that the advertising industry spends more on advertising alcopops than it does on advertising wine? In addition, is he aware that schools are often more concerned about alcohol abuse among their pupils than they are about drug abuse—possibly rightly so? What does the noble Lord propose to do to turn that problem around?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, first, we must ensure that the problem is viewed in proportion. Concern about under-age drinking does exist but sometimes it depends on the social context within which it takes

455
place. One knows of friends who allow their children from the age of 14 onwards and in a supervised environment to drink wine with water over a meal. That is hardly a major issue of concern. Alcopops have been, and remain, a concern of the Government in terms of whether they represent an insidious form of promoting drink to young people. In that respect, through £21 million-worth of support per annum to the national curriculum, the Government have taken, and continue to take, action to promote through schools and through the schools forum the sensible use of alcohol and to raise concerns about drugs.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that alcohol is more dangerous for young girls and women than it is for males? Will he ensure that more health education is available in order to inform people of the number of units of alcohol that may safely be consumed?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am aware of that. I believe that it gave rise to the rather sensitive admission by my noble friend Lord Hunt that women have less water and more fat in their bodies, which accounts for the greater propensity of females to metabolise alcohol more slowly. I give that as a piece of scientific information which I know the House would want to hear. On a more serious note, there is a trend for young women to binge-drink—a trend which may have been less prevalent 20 or 30 years ago. As a consequence, they are more susceptible to alcohol. This issue is a focus of the Government's concern and it has led to the development of their alcohol misuse strategy, which is currently being prepared.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug in this country, particularly when it is mixed with soft and hard drugs? Does he also agree that it is responsible for many deaths? Each year 35,000 young people die from alcohol poisoning and many people are killed on the roads. Many murders take place and the abuse of wives and children also occurs because of alcohol. Will the Government consider supporting the Liquor Advertising and Promotion Bill, which I introduced in the last Parliament and which is now waiting in the wings, since it follows very closely the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which the Government now support?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in a word: no. I look forward to reading the Liquor Advertising and Promotion Bill to which the noble Lord draws my attention. However, the facts are not as he says. The most dangerous drug available in this country is tobacco, not alcohol. Each year 120,000 people die from tobacco-related diseases, whereas the number of people who die from cirrhosis of the liver each year is 4,600. That is 4,600 too many, but there is no comparison between the mortality rates of tobacco and alcohol.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the drinks industry could be more helpful as
456
regards the labelling on bottles of alcohol? Does he agree that it would be helpful to have the number of units of alcohol in a bottle of wine printed on the label? Such information could be related to the health education of which we are all aware, and to how many units of alcohol it is safe for a man or a woman to drink in a week. Some bottles of wine contain six units and some contain nine units; it depends on the level of alcohol in the bottle.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have learnt something. I had always thought that there were six units in a bottle of wine. That will probably allow me to increase my weekly dose. To be serious, that is a sensible point that we should consider in the department as we develop the strategy on alcohol misuse. As noble Lords are aware, the definition has changed from 21 units a week for a man to between three and four units a day to try to limit people cheating on binge drinking.
Lord Condon: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Independent Complaints Panel of the Portman Group. Is the Minister aware that the Portman Group, which seeks to promote sensible drinking of alcohol, is currently reviewing all its codes for guidance, self-regulation and complaints, and is seeking observations and recommendations for a new strengthened version of the code to be published in the summer?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, we are aware of that. We look forward to reading that and hope that it will have a powerful impact.

Seat Belts: Back-seat Passengers
2.51 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to encourage back-seat passengers in cars to wear seat belts in accordance with the law, including the prosecution of those who do not.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will continue with its publicity campaigns to encourage seat belt wearing, both in the front of vehicles and in the rear. The observed wearing rate in the rear of a vehicle by adults has increased to 56 per cent and further work is needed to improve on that. Enforcement of the law is for the police. In the year 2000 police in Great Britain issued over 188,000 fixed penalty not:ices and 8,700 prosecutions were undertaken. Some 6,000 formal written warnings were issued in England and Wales.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Is he aware that seat belts worn in the rear of a vehicle would prevent some 80 per cent of the deaths of people sitting

457
in the front of vehicles? Should I infer from what he has said that so far the publicity campaign has largely been a failure because, on his admission, some 46 per cent of people in the rear of vehicles do not wear seat belts and that prosecutions have not had the desired effect? While recognising the results of the Japanese survey that show that people who sit in the front of vehicles are at such a huge danger from unbelted passengers in the rear, does he agree that the publicity campaign and the efforts to prosecute should be stepped up at once?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the 80 per cent figure was based on the research carried out in Japan, which highlights the importance of wearing a rear seat belt. However, the research published in the Lancet is not indicative of the potential UK savings, because it was a survey of accidents and casualties in Japan where seat belt wearing in the rear of vehicles is not compulsory. The results cannot be read across directly for use in this country. Yes, there is certainly work to be carried out in persuading people to wear seat belts in the rear of cars, but it is worth pointing out that there has been an improvement from the figure of about 46 per cent of people who wear seat belts in the rear to the current figure, which is a significant increase.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while the wearing of seat belts in the rear of vehicles would prevent a great deal of death and disability, much attention needs to be paid by the manufacturers of seat belts to an improved design? Sometimes when one travels by London taxi one can be almost at one's destination before one has managed to fasten the seat belt. On the rare occasion when I am a back-seat passenger in my family car, similar difficulties arise. What are the Government doing to promote better design of rear seat belts?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have experienced difficulty in fastening seat belts—not because I am more water than fat, but for other reasons. It is important. Everybody agrees that if there is a seat belt it should be worn. That is the law now, save in exceptional cases. We want to promote that as much as possible. We shall speak to manufacturers about improving the design, but they are as aware as everybody else that because seat belts are compulsory front and back it is in their interests to have as easy a seat belt locking device as possible.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the insurance industry is doing to promote the wearing of seat belts, both front and rear?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot tell the House specifically what the insurance industry is doing, but I know that the insurance industry has greatly benefited from the increased use of seat belts. It is as aware of that as anybody.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, on the enforcement figures that my noble and learned friend has
458
given for the wearing of seat belts in the rear of vehicles, is he aware that many of us are puzzled that that law can be enforced on the basis of police observation, but it does not appear to be possible to enforce a similarly effective law dealing with the use of mobile phones by drivers on the basis of police observation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the use of mobile phones by drivers is an important issue. It contributes significantly to accidents. I do not have the statistics in relation to that. As my noble friend rightly points out, this is an area of the law that is enforced by police observation and it could be read across to other areas as well.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, on that point, the wearing of seat belts is subject to the law, which says that a person must wear a seat belt, whereas a driver using a mobile telephone has to be prosecuted by a policeman who observes him or her driving without due care and attention. The latter offence is very difficult to prove. Does that contribute to the fact that such offences are more prevalent than seat belt offences?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am unsure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that driving without due care and attention is more prevalent than seat belt offences. The figures in relation to the enforcement of seat belt wearing are 188,000 cases of fixed penalty notices. I do not have the precise figures, but I would imagine that that is much more than the figures for driving without due care and attention. That figure of 188,000 does not include the 8,683 cases taken to court. The principal point made by the noble Lord is plainly right. Under a fixed penalty system such a matter is easier to deal with than a case that has to go to court with all the attendant administration that that requires.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend
Viscount Astor: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps the House should hear the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, first and then my noble friend Lord Acton.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the increasing percentage of people wearing rear seat belts. However, it was a Conservative government who brought in the legislation. I am delighted that the Minister is using it so well. Of the convictions that he mentioned in an earlier answer, how many relate to convictions for not wearing a seat belt in the front of a vehicle and how many relate to not wearing a seat belt in the rear?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the breakdown between the front and the rear of vehicles. The noble Viscount is absolutely correct to say that the legislation was introduced by a

459
Conservative government. All noble Lords will agree that it is a sensible law. The correct course is to take as many steps as possible to ensure that it is enforced.
Lord Acton: My Lords, with no disrespect to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, can the Leader of the House tell the House whether any Peer has priority? Does the Front Bench opposite have priority over 13ack-Benc:hers on this side?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is the normal courtesy. Courtesy tends to be favoured in this House. If my noble friend Lord Acton has a question, he can ask it now.
Lord Acton: My Lords, thank you very much.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend indicate whether his department will take into account the representations that have been made on all sides of the House in relation to this point and convene a meeting of all interested parties to discuss this important issue?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is an important issue. I do not know what else is taking place in relation to enforcement, but the right course is to ensure that all interested parties—the insurance industry, the car manufacturing industry and those concerned with road safety—are regularly consulted about the progress made in this area.

Care Homes
3 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to reform the personal expenses allowance for older people in residential or nursing care homes.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the current level of the personal expenses allowance is £16.05 per week. Ministers consulted about increasing this to £16.80. Decisions are imminent. This allowance is in addition to other income and assets not taken into account by the financial assessment for residential care.
The personal expenses allowance should not be spent on services which care homes are contracted to provide by councils, nor on services assessed as necessary by councils and the NHS. The Government will be strengthening guidance to local authorities in that respect.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. But there are many examples of elderly people in residential and nursing care having to use their personal expenses allowance for services which are not demanded but are essential to them, such as chiropody and sometimes to buy birthday presents for their grandchildren. Help
460
the Aged, which recently produced a report, Age Concern and many other organisations can provide many examples. Certainly, they do not always receive the allowance to which they are entitled. Does the Minister agree that what is important is that older people actually receive the allowance—and in fact a higher allowance—and are able to spend it on the things that they really want?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in essence I agree that it is important that older people in care homes receive the personal allowance, or if it is used to offset purchases that those purchases are with their explicit consent, wherever it is possible to receive such a consent.
The Help the Aged report, which was a survey of some 46 people, is a useful indication of issues. The problem mostly occurred with relatives rather than with the care home management staff themselves. That pointed to the importance of relatives making it clear to their elderly relative that they were entitled to the full amount if they wanted it, or being clear as to what had been withheld where that was not happening. The Government will look into these issues as part of the revised guidance that I mentioned.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that he had read the Help the Aged report: Friday is Pay Day. It contained evidence inter alia of care homes withholding some of the personal allowance in order to meet fees charged by those homes which were not being met by the amounts received from the local authorities. What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, whether or not care homes or residential homes think that they do not have enough money from local authorities, that is no justification for their taking money that is the entitlement of older people. Those are issues that they should take up with the local authority itself, as no doubt some of them are so doing. Overall the Government, in developing appropriate supply relationships in the care home industry, are promoting building capacity for care homes, issuing advisory documents to local authorities and stressing the importance of developing longer-term supply relationships rather than short-term spot purchasing.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords. does the Minister agree that this is an issue that affects the dignity and the health of old people in homes? Having their feet and hair done sounds like a minor thing but it is what makes the difference between individuality and being just a number in a home. I should like much stronger assurances from the Government than I have yet heard that it will be made unlawful for both the home and the local authorities to withhold any of the extremely small amounts of money that most of these old people have.
Lord Filkin: My Lords. I strongly agree. The report reminds one how important small amounts of money over which people can retain personal control can he to retaining one's self respect and dignity when everything else in that environment is provided. That

461
is really crucial for people's self regard. In fact, in the circumstances quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is already illegal for that to take place. It is theirs as of right and theirs lawfully. That is why the Government intend in their guidance, which will be published in April, to make these points explicitly clear to relatives and to care homes, whether they are run by local authorities or are in the private sector.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister's response to this Question proves that the Department of Health is now taking over responsibility for the allowances which was traditionally the role of the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Government guarantee that they will use the same upgrading system for these charges in the future as was used by the previous department?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that I would be wise to say that I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the establishment of the National Care Standards Commission will have an important effect on these issues? I refer in particular to the communication of information to older people when they enter residential care and also to their relatives.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we have great confidence in the National Care Standards Commission. It will be an important vehicle in taking forward the national service framework for older people and the Government's commitment to improve the standard of care to older people in our society. We shall watch its work with interest and wish it Godspeed as it starts its work this year.

Business of the House: Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Privy Seal to advance the Committee stage of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill from Thursday 7th February to this day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
Report received.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
462
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of amnesty period]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "2007" and insert "2005"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is about the message that is being sent to the paramilitaries on decommissioning. In the other place an amendment was moved to bring the extension of the Bill forward for one year only. At Second Reading I made quite clear my views on the Government's handling of the decommissioning issue since they have been in power. They do not need repeating.
However, what is still open for discussion and debate—and should be—is the length of time that should be put in the Bill as an extension. It can be argued that one year under the present political system is perhaps not enough. Noble Lords on this side of the Committee are as anxious to keep the peace process going forward as I am sure the Government are. But there are messages to be sent. The message must be that the Government today are determined to see the decommissioning issue through; to tackle it; to do everything they can to make it happen; and to be clearly responsible for it.
My argument is that as the Bill is worded it carries the extension through to 2007 which is beyond the life of this Parliament and this Government. That shows a quite clear abdication of the problem by the present Government. I am sure that that is not their intention. But they should correct that situation. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will take that matter away and give it serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have been happy to add my name to the amendment. I touched on the matter in general on another occasion and, as I am aware of the relation between this amendment and Amendment No. 2, I shall venture an opinion on a slightly different aspect. There must be greater priority and precision. We simply cannot let an issue as vital as this continue on and on without any clear determination or explanation at any time of for how long we shall put up with such a charade.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: When one uses an imperative, it normally implies that one has authority and if that imperative is flouted, sanction is available and there is the will to exert that sanction. I support my noble friend's amendment because for a long time now Ministers have been saying that decommissioning should take place and that it must take place. Of course, Her Majesty's Government have authority to say that but, unfortunately, in circumstances with which we are all too familiar, they have failed to secure any but a single tranche of decommissioning from the

463
IRA and one from one of the equally vile loyalist paramilitary organisations. On the other hand, no sanction has been exerted. On the contrary, it is hard to identify any objective of Sinn Fein that has not been yielded unto it.
The Bill now takes account of the envisaged possibility that five years may elapse with decommissioning still at least incomplete at the end of it. We must ask: does that matter? In my view, harm has already been done. First, the authority and credibility of the commission has surely been harmed. I do not believe that I was alone in reading an implication—an inference—into the statement From General de Chastelaine after the decommissioning in October that more was expected, and soon. That has not happened.
Secondly, the authority of Her Majesty's Government has undoubtedly been diminished by reason of nothing more having been yielded up by way of decommissioning and nothing having been done by way of sanction. Thirdly, it is right for us at least to note that the morale of Unionists—moderate Unionists—in Northern Ireland has been deeply harmed by that turn of events. When their morale declines to a dangerous lever—as it may well have done—the possible consequences are too dangerous to need enumerating.
If we passed my noble friend's amendment, that would at least show that this Parliament, while having the sponge all too readily at hand, was not prepared to chuck it in, as it will be seen to be doing if the Bill is left unamended. That would show that, even at this stage, this Parliament was prepared to envisage serving out its term with that imperative disobeyed.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I rise to support the amendment, but first I must declare an interest. Not only do I live in Northern Ireland, but I have recently become a member of the Northern Ireland policing board. However, my views on arms decommissioning have not changed as a result of that, and anything that I say is not with the authority of any other member of that board.
Decommissioning was originally set out to take place over two years. That was achieved by majority vote in the north and south of Ireland on the Belfast agreement. There are many occasions on which the Belfast agreement is thrown in our faces in Northern Ireland. People say, "This was agreed, therefore we do it." The Government have followed that line.
I wonder what gives the Government the authority to keep extending—frankly, it appears to us, in the hope that we forget about it—something that was approved by such a majority in both the north and south of Ireland. It is clearly the wish of everyone there to see arms taken out of the equation on all sides of the terrorist divide. It is sad that, if the Government do not accept the amendment, their integrity will be undermined.
People in Northern Ireland believe that the Government wish to see the end of this problem, but it does not do the Government a great deal of good to be
464
seen to be bringing forward legislation that puts it all further and further back. The sooner that the problem is solved the better for everybody—not only in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Lord Fitt: As I entered your Lordships' Chamber this afternoon, I ran into a mass exodus of the vast majority of noble Lords from the House. That indicated to me that there is no great concern in your Lordships' House about the Bill, which is of such concern to the people of Northern Ireland. I was not here for the Second Reading debate, but I read an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, who seemed to chide the House with the fact that only Unionist Members had spoken during the debate.
That is perfectly understandable. because it was Unionist Members who were subjected to a mass campaign of murder and mayhem by the activities of the IRA during the past 30 years. Not only Unionists were victims. I myself was a victim of terrorism in Northern Ireland by both sides—both the IRA and the so-called loyalist terrorists who murdered my closest friends.
The Bill and its ramifications are of tremendous concern to the people of Northern Ireland. I intervene in this debate to try to bring some reality to the Government Front Bench. It has repeatedly been said that the decommissioning of illegal arms in Northern Ireland by both sections—the' loyalists and the Republicans—was part of the Belfast agreement. Since then, concession after concession has been made in a most overt way to the Republicans, but also to the loyalist paramilitaries.
I should like to pose the Minister a question that I heard in Belfast all last week. Ordinary people in the streets—who know what the Bill is about and who know that further concessions have been made to the paramilitary organisations for another five years—have asked me, and I ask the Minister on the Front Bench, the following question. What would happen if a statement were issued next week by P. O'Neill, which is the IRA's pseudonym, which said: "We are not going to decommission any of our arms. We are telling you now in straightforward terms that we are not going to decommission any further arms"? What sanction do the Government have at their disposal against that statement? The answer is, "Absolutely none".
I read some of the speeches made at Second Reading. One speaker suggested that we should bring our influence to bear on other countries so that they might apply some pressure to the IRA and other organisations. That is not possible. There are many countries who support what the IRA and the loyalist organisations have been doing over the past 30 years. In effect, we are saying that other countries should apply pressure to the IRA on decommissioning. That is not a possibility; it will not help.
It may be that America will try to apply such pressure. It has itself been the victim of terrorism. It may be that American influence could be applied to

465
the IRA. However, I doubt that the vast majority of Irish-Americans, who have given active moral and financial support to the IRA over the years, will, all of a sudden, put sincere pressure on the IRA to bring about decommissioning.
I do not believe—I say this with great regret—that the IRA will decommission any more guns. It is a heartbreak to have to say that, but the fact is that the Government are letting the IRA off the hook by saying that they will give them another five years. The IRA must be laughing up their sleeves at the Government and at every concession that has been made in recent years in all the agreements and discussions that have taken place—particularly those at Weston Park. I believe that it was at Weston Park that they arrived at the conclusion that there would be an extension for another five years.
I listened to Radio 4 this morning. I heard clips from New York where many elected representatives from Northern Ireland are instead of being at Stormont and in Northern Ireland where the problem is. They are all in America. I do not know what they hope to achieve from those discussions. They would be better staying in Northern Ireland and trying to reach an accommodation.
My main reason for speaking in the debate—I repeat that I say this with great regret—is that the Government have made concession after concession until they have no more sanctions that can force the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries to engage in further decommissioning of their arms. There is nothing with which the Government can threaten them. Those paramilitary organisations—loyalist and republican—can say to the Government, "You can talk as much as you like; we will hold onto our arms".
Lord Smith of Clifton: Everyone wants decommissioning, of course. The question is what priority one should put on it, as we move towards a more normal situation in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning became too much of an aspiration in the endless negotiations both prior to the conclusion of the Belfast agreement and subsequently. If memory serves me right, it was the noble Lord, Lord Eames, who made that comment some months ago in your Lordships' House.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about who is likely to be able to bring the most persuasive pressure on the IRA and others, but we probably disagree about where it might come from, or the way in which it will come. Little further will be achieved by continuing to grandstand the republicans on the issue. Further decommissioning will come about in the near future only when and if the United States Administration deliver another ultimatum to Sinn Fein. That is the realpolitik of the situation.
We can stamp our feet and scream as much as we like, but it will have absolutely no effect on the IRA. We can all agree on that. Therefore, continuing to have decommissioning times that come and go is debilitating to the wider process. That is why, on these Benches, we think that we should go for a
466
quinquennium, before the issue comes up again, in the great hope that the development of democracy in Northern Ireland overtakes the issue and that, if necessary, the United States Administration will use their good offices again to apply pressure for decommissioning.
At the moment—thank goodness—the republican guns are reasonably silent, as opposed to those of the loyalist paramilitaries whose current campaign of murder, bombing and mayhem is perhaps the biggest risk to security in Northern Ireland. For that reason, we do not support the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am one of the host—the vast majority—of Members of your Lordships' House who take little part in debates on the affairs of Northern Ireland. I speak now only because the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made me feel ashamed of not having done so before.
One of the reasons why I have not spoken is that I do not know what I would like the Government to do. The difficulty is—I place no blame for it—that once one feels obliged to sit down and talk to men of violence, who will not hesitate to use violence and who have no scruples or any thought of remorse afterwards, it is difficult to get up again and resume a policy of strength. However, at least the amendment offers to people such as myself an opportunity to express—briefly—a sense of the failure of this country even to make a pretence of standing up to such people and saying that we cannot go any further until the business of decommissioning—which was a commitment—is taken to its end and fulfilled. We have not done so.
The noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux of Killead and Lord Fitt, referred to the people of Northern Ireland. I would find it difficult to explain to the people of Northern Ireland, at one and the same time, that we were giving further time for the fulfilment of a solemn obligation and that, in addition, we would publicly afford a welcome to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, previously denied, to those who, although elected to Parliament, have not seen fit or felt able to take the traditional oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen and to the things for which this country stands. Had either of those two tenants of rooms in the Palace of Westminster ever expressed any grain of remorse or pity towards those whom they have hurt, one might, I suppose, feel differently. As it is, the amendment offers us at least a chance of saying that enough is enough, and, even if it is not passed into law, of indicating the sickness and shame over concessions which many of us feel we have been forced into making to men who have so far shown themselves to be wicked and totally unwilling to forsake the ways of violence.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: I did not speak in the Second Reading debate but I have contributed to Northern Ireland debates and scrupulously attended many of them.
As acknowledged even by people supporting Amendment No. 1, passing it will not make a jot of difference to anything which happens. It will simply

467
make the Government look ridiculous. I am not speaking on behalf of the Government; I never do. But let me try and explain what I feel happened in Northern Ireland.
The IRA were not defeated, nor did they give in. Her Majesty's troops were not defeated, nor did they give in. 'Therefore there was a truce. As my noble friend Lord Fitt said, it is not within the power of Her Majesty's Government to implement any pre-emptive notice to the IRA saying, "If you do not do this, we will do X". Whatever that "X" was, it would simply harm the process which has been taking place.
This is a tricky situation in which we have not found ourselves before. Long ago, perhaps in colonies far away, it happened, but I do not want to repeat those stories. Because of the peculiar location of Northern Ireland and the jurisdiction, this is a process in which we will have to be patient. It will happen. Indeed, if we think about it, decommissioning is much further forward than it was two years ago. I know events move slowly, but we have progressed.
Patience is required because this is a tricky situation. It is important to remember that the guns are silent—that is, the guns on the Irish side. Other movements are sprouting up all over the place, but at least the Provisional IRA guns are silent. We must exercise a lot of patience and see this process through. It is no good doing things which only make us look more impotent. Therefore II urge the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, having moved this amendment and having heard the discussion, to withdraw it. It will not be helpful.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I strongly support Amendment No. I for a number of reasons. The first is that we still have to demonstrate to the majority of people in Northern Ireland that we seriously wish to protect them against the gun. As already stated, the IRA have never given anything without getting enormous concessions in return. The time for concessions has to stop and the people must be reassured that the Government have at least enough belief in themselves not to appease. They may say, "Another year". We may have to do that. But they must not give the IRA another five years. To the ordinary people of Northern Ireland that would be a complete betrayal.
The Americans also will respect us more and do more if we are seen to stick to our guns—a rather unfortunate phrase—and not allow any more delay than is absolutely necessary. Anything else is appeasement. If the noble Lord will forgive me, it is not true to say that the gun is silent. It has stopped killing policemen and soldiers temporarily. It has not stopped killing their own communities and it has not stopped violence. The paramilitaries are reigning supreme.
Meanwhile, in the South, the Taoiseach, the Irish Government and the Irish parties are saying (whether or not they can stick to their guns over it) that if they ever have to form a government, they will never form it with Sinn Fein. If they can take that stand over the IRA, surely we, who are in Northern Ireland by rights
468
because the majority chose to stay in the United Kingdom—let me remind the Committee of that—can say that enough is enough. It will not serve our relations with the people or create any trust in the people if we do not say enough is enough.
Unfortunately, the Government still have more concessions in their quiver. They can still give amnesty to the people on the run; they can withdraw more troops; they can destroy more observation towers; they can back down over all sorts of major issues in relation to the police; they can still destroy the Special Branch. All those are things the IRA still want. At the very least we ought to be getting something in return.
I accept that decommissioning is unreal because the IRA can simply go out and buy more arms. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the people of Northern Ireland believe that the Government are prepared to stand up for their rights and insist that the bargain is kept. We do not have the right simply to say, "It is in the interests of the peace process". What peace process? When we look at the streets of Northern Ireland, what peace process do we see? The Government have no choice but to extend as far as the law allows. I accept that if the decommissioning Act lapsed, that would create a new situation. I suppose there will have to be an extension. But it should not be for longer than is absolutely necessary.
I feel strongly that, in the name of a totally illusory peace process, we do not have the right to give away any more than has been given already, particularly since the people of Northern Ireland must now be wondering whether they are going to be sold down the river in the future through the successes of the IRA in electoral fraud.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I too have riot spoken on Northern Ireland, though it is my part of the world. This amendment says something that is extremely important and I want to challenge only one suggestion—that it is realpolitik not to vote for the amendment. It is not. It is comfortable and cosy, but it is not realpolitik. Realpolitik has to take into account the real forces that are ranged for and against the amendment.
We know that it is extraordinarily difficult for moderate unionists to continue to support the amendment. A signal from this Chamber and from this Parliament would be extremely important. I can only agree with other Members of the Committee who have said that simply to push decommissioning away into the mid-distance or Never Never Land is to give the wrong signal at this time. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: When a number of years ago my noble friend Lord Molyneaux asked me to write a paper on decommissioning, I did so in the belief that the Government of the United Kingdom would at least understand the nature of what I had written. The example we had in years prior to that of NATO and the Warsaw pact countries holding each other at bay with a large range of weapons and then moving slowly but inexorably towards a disarmament

469
process that allowed a more normal relationship to exist was an important example and one that should be applied on the micro-scale to our situation in Northern Ireland.
Many of us never believed that we could persuade the terrorist organisations that there was an option—terrorism or democracy—and that they should choose democracy unless we made it patently clear that we were prepared, whatever the sins of the past, whatever the atrocities of the past, to provide a vehicle whereby those who had been terrorists could move fully into the democratic structure. That has been a long and painful journey from 1994. It led to a situation which many of my tradition and many of the nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland failed to understand. We believed that before we achieved a foolproof example of terrorist organisations eschewing forever terrorism we could bring them, bit by bit, within the democratic process. That in itself was a contradiction, but many of us believed—sadly we have been proven wrong—that the Government could be depended upon to ensure that inexorable progress would be made.
Look at the situation today in terms of international terrorism and consider how the Government, along with our western allies, have adopted a most uncompromising approach to anyone or any organisation which indulges in terrorism, which has arms and explosives it is prepared to use against civilian populations, and then look at the way in which the Prime Minister has accommodated those who have not made any significant move towards disarmament.
We are told that one of the reasons we are so concerned with modern international terrorism is that there are stockpiles of poison gases and weapons, including nuclear weapons, that have to be dealt with before the bin Ladens can get their hands on them. On the microscale, it is no different for the civilian population in Northern Ireland. We have to see the detonators and explosives—the catalysts for the huge bombs that we have suffered from over the years—and the guns removed, whoever may succeed. Someone said that the guns are silent today, but who is to tell me that organisations which will use these weapons will not spring up in two years, five years or 10 years time? After 30 years, how can we build a democracy—a true, sharing democracy—on the uncertainty created by guns within our society?
There are many anomalies in what is happening to us within our own United Kingdom. I heard someone say that the IRA had not been defeated, nor had our forces been defeated. In fact, our forces are being asked to act as though they have been defeated. We see that in terms of what is happening to the police.
I do not want to infringe on the protocol of your Lordships' House by talking for too long on this subject. Suffice to say that within the leaderships accepted by the democratic process—particularly in terms of Sinn Fein—there are those who are within the leadership of the IRA. I do not put too fine a point on it if I say that Gerry Adams is, ex officio, a member of the IRA army council because he is the president of Sinn Fein. It is now accepted that Martin McGuinness
470
was a Chief of Staff of the IRA. He is now, for better or for worse, the Minister for Education. Mr Doherty recently elected to another place—is also a member or an ex-member of the IRA army council.
For the Government to pretend that these people need to be subsidised by half-a-million pounds per year—year in, year out—in order to keep alive a peace process from which their tradition as well as mine could benefit, is unacceptable. For that reason I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has brought forward the amendment. I hope that we will be able to put into the context of national and international politics what we are trying to achieve by the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for being the third member of the Committee to pre-empt his speech as he was about to make it. I had not intended to speak, but a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—reinforced by the subsequent reference made to it by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth—brings me to my feet.
Let me put my remarks in context. We all know the details and the terms of the Belfast agreement. There is an element of crying over spilt milk that the terms were as they were and that they were without sanctions, in particular in regard to the responsibility of parties to make "best endeavours" on decommissioning. None on these Benches was privy to the thinking of the Government when they negotiated the Belfast agreement on those particular terms—that will be a matter for historians.
Nor is it my part to defend the Government—I cannot tell whether or not I should give the Government the benefit of the doubt—but, as a bystander, I cannot help remarking that just as fatigue no doubt assaulted and assailed other parties to the agreement in the watches of the night on the morning of that Good Friday when the agreement was being finally determined, the Government and their advisers were not themselves immune to fatigue either, and the full implications of what they were doing may not have been clear to them in terms of what has subsequently developed.
None of us knows what endeavours—it is "best endeavours" that were meant to be made—the IRA or any of the other paramilitaries have made over recent years, although we know the fact of the decommissioning which occurred last autumn.
The phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which brought me to my feet—and to which my noble friend Lady Park referred—was "the guns are silent". It is in that context and in that atmosphere that we are debating these matters today. I have no emotional capital tied up in the report produced in the previous Parliament in another place by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the behaviour of the paramilitaries towards those they were sending into exile, but it is worth mentioning the histograms drawn up on page 58 of Volume 2, which is devoted to evidence. They show that after the cease-fires in 1994

471
and 1998, there is no marked difference in the amount of punishments which have been administered. but there is a very marked difference in the use of the gun. There have been a great many more shooting incidents since the cease-fire in 1998 than there were after the cease-fire in 1994.
One is ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that the paramilitaries on either side are simply pushing their luck to see where are the limits in the use of the gun, but it would be quite wrong to say—although I understand the terms in which the noble Lord used the phrase—that the guns are silent. The guns are noisier than they were before the Belfast agreement and after the 1994 cease-fire in that regard.
I support the argument that we should maintain the pressure in this House. The nation as a whole attaches importance to the issue of "best endeavours"— they are not empty words and the horizon for decommissioning should not be unduly extended.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Some harsh words have been used in the debate: "abdication of responsibility". "charade" and "integrity undermined". Then there was the rhetorical question from the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: "What peace process?". The noble Lord. Lord Peyton, spoke of failure.
I do not believe that it has been a story of unmitigated failure. The Assembly is working—not perfectly, but with a growing spirit of co-operation, and that is a remarkable achievement in terms of the centuries of history of which we know. It is truly irresponsible not to recognise that.
It is not responsible to overlook the fact that the historic constitutional claim of the Irish Republic has been given up, following a referendum. These are not perfect solutions to difficult questions. However, I suggest that the history of the past five years has not been one of entire gloom.
It is just as well to hear in mind what is being proposed; namely, the original Bill and what would be the consequence of the amendment were it to be passed. The original Act, introduced when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, set out a scheme that was not intended to be a time-frame for decommissioning. It was never put forward on that basis. It was put forward, as I understand it, on the basis that this was the usual period for time-limited Acts. It is important to remind ourselves that the original Act—and it would remain the case were it to be amended—is subject to annual renewal by Parliament on the affirmative procedure. That is the basis of the existing Act, which expires at the end of this month, and it would be the basis of any continuation if your Lordships allow it.
Therefore, we are not saying that this is a time-frame for decommissioning of five years—nor, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, of three years. What we are disputing is whether or not there should be an extension of the Act. I repeat the important point that the Act is subject to annual extension on the basis of the affirmative procedure.
472
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked what would be the sanctions if the IRA made the declaration of which he spoke. The answer is that there is the parliamentary sanction, because Parliament does not have to approve on the affirmative procedure what it does not seek to do.
The real difference here is not whether we should ever have engaged in discussions with the IRA or with other armed groups. That is not the question. The short question to which the amendment draws our minds is: should there be an extension of the order-making power for three years (as the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, seeks) or should it be an extension of the ability of the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative process, for five years? That is the difference between us. I respectfully suggest that the prudent course, subject to the constraints of parliamentary power, which has to be supreme, every year, is to go for the extension on the basis on which the original Act was introduced.
I very much hope that in three years' time, let alone in five years' time, this provision will not be required. Those who know Northern Ireland better than I do may be gloomier in that context. However, I revert to what I said on an earlier occasion. If the human mind and the human heart can change, whether it be the loyalist criminals or the Irish Republican Army criminals, do we need the mechanism provided by the Bill—described by the noble and learned Lord as a possessory amnesty? I believe that we do. If the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the Committee, I ask Members of the Committee—
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Will the Minister give way? Has any progress made since 1998 been the result of any initiative by the Government? Has it riot in fact resulted from an initiative by David Trimble, who moved the democratic process to the very edge of survival in order to force Sinn Fein-IRA to make some move towards that process? How often is David Trimble going to have to carry the burden without the tangible support of this Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that the question put is a true question. Mr Trimble has been extraordinarily courageous. He has looked for the support of the British Government and he has received it. It is no coincidence in my opinion—and I was talking to Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan only in the past few days, having had the privilege of meeting them in their office in the Assembly. David Trimble is a very courageous and considerable public servant. He is entitled to look for support from the British Government. However, I believe that this enabling legislation in part—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that is it not the total answer—offers the opportunity for progress. I do not believe that we should truly respect and honour the work of David Trimble were we not full-hearted in our support of what he, Mark Durkan and others have been able to do in the Assembly—and Seamus Mallon previously. This is an enabling measure which offers part of the answer to a problem that has beset us all for centuries.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank all my noble friends and other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this extremely thoughtful debate, as I hope the Committee will agree. In particular, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, to our discussions on Northern Ireland matters.
We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and to a lesser degree the noble Lord, Lord Smith, suggest that decommissioning should be part—it is not a necessary part—of the process. I hope that I am not going overboard in saying that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that a diktat from the United States, from the White House, could have a significant impact on the situation.
As I said in my opening remarks, the amendment and the debate that we have had are about messages. They are about sending to the paramilitaries another message from the Government that they will not put decommissioning on a long pole; that they are determined to make something happen one way or another.
The Minister remarked that the Assembly is working. I have complimented the Government previously on that point from this Dispatch Box. But I must also ask him: how long for? I have just returned from Northern Ireland, having spent what has been for me one of the more depressing weekends there. I spoke to people from several quarters, including members of the judiciary and the construction industry, and drivers. I have never felt the people of Northern Ireland, particularly of the Unionist persuasion, to be so deflated and demoralised—to say nothing of the figures for absenteeism in the Northern Ireland Police Service about which I heard.
The amendment is about sending a message to the paramilitaries and to a part of the United Kingdom whose people feel deserted, knocked about and not loved. It has an Assembly which is working, but which is coming up for re-election in the not-too-distant future. I hope that all Members of the Committee, and the Government, will agree with me that the best outcome of another election for the Assembly will be for the centre parties to remain in basic control of that Assembly. I hope that none of us wants polarisation outwards to the extremes of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
I firmly believe that this is an important amendment. Today may not be the day to press it. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said and other debates that we are going to have, for this afternoon I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1. insert the following new clause—
"COMMENCEMENT
This Act shall not come into force until after the Commission established under section 7 of the 1997 Act shall have laid a report before both Houses of Parliament on progress made in decommissioning since the coming into effect of the 1997 Act."
The noble Lord said: This amendment is on the same lines as the previous one, although it may not appear so. It is again about the morale and understanding of the people of Northern Ireland. All the people of Northern Ireland deserve to know what Sinn Fein/IRA and other paramilitaries are doing with regard to decommissioning to take the violence out of Northern Irish politics. The amendment would require the commission that was established by the 1997 Act to lay a report before Parliament on the progress of decommissioning before the commencement of the Act. We do not want to delay the decommissioning process—indeed, we wish to speed it up. However, we want to see tangible progress and we would like to see independent verification of that progress.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve something. I believe that there has been significant decommissioning and so does David Trimble, but the people of Northern Ireland do not. There is no question of that.
My original thoughts when drafting the amendment went considerably wider—so wide that the Clerks would not allow me my way. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a list of the organisations and groups in contract today with the decommissioning commission in relation to decommissioning, together with details of the number of visits carried out by or on behalf of the commission in relation to decommissioning, a report into the extent to which the commission believes that the decommissioning scheme has been a success and other matters in relation to the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives. In short, the amendment is about attempting again to get an encouraging message across to the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning is real and is happening and that the whole process is a long way from being one-sided. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I indicated earlier that I might want to say a few words about this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said, we have been performing a real service in concentrating our attention on the imperative of making disarmament real and not a mere fiction. There must be some finality—we cannot go on drifting. Idle chatter about putting weapons beyond use, identifying unnamed bunkers, letters signed by the mythical P O'Neill and other meaningless phrases have devalued the word "decommissioning". When one seeks to cut through such verbiage, one is accused of demanding ceremonial surrender—which accusation is entirely without foundation.
My noble friend Lord Maginnis has triggered my memory and taken me back to a not unimportant discussion that he and I had in my room close on midnight a good many years ago. We were thinking about disarmament following conflict. He may remember my explanation of what happened to me 57 years ago. As the Second World War was drawing to an end, our small Royal Air Force unit was ordered to a place called Flensburg on the Danish frontier, about 120 miles behind the German lines. Your Lordships might ask what I was doing there. Our

475
object was to grab a Luftwaffe base to which had been flown a large selection of German experimental rocket aircraft from the Peenemunde experimental station, which was being overrun by the Russians. The Air Vice-Marshal commanding 83 Group felt that it was important to prevent them falling into the hands of the Russians. I do not know whether he was also nervous about certain other people getting hold of them, but it would not have been tactful to have said so at the time.
When we got there, nearly 9,000 German officers and men insisted—there is a certain parallel here with what we are speaking about today—first on retaining their arms to defend themselves from the Russian armies, which were then moving westward, because the war had not finished. When we refused to fall for that one, they then wanted to assist us—if you please—in halting the westward march of the Russian divisions. As allies of a sort, we could not possibly fall for that one. The next demand was from the officers, who insisted on retaining their arms to preserve discipline over their own ranks. Another ploy was to negotiate honourable terms so that they would not lose face and appear defeated to their own supporters. Finally, they said that they would surrender only to British forces and not to the allied forces.
My commanding officer, who was a very impressive character, bluntly informed all present that we would only accept unconditional surrender on behalf of the supreme commander, General Eisenhower. Oddly enough, we achieved that within hours, two days before the war ended, although two of us got shot in the process.
The allied disarmament commission then swung into action. This is where we can derive a lesson from those events. Within five days it was operating. Over the years I have become convinced that if we had not been rock solid in those early days in carrying out the decisions that had been made by the big three at the Yalta conference some months before and if we, the allies, had embarked on an untidy, endless series of parleys, Britain and America could not possibly have resisted the subsequent years of Russian aggression. The occasional statement by Herr P O'Neill would have thrown the NATO organisation into confusion.
It is possible that some will try to persuade your Lordships that the surrender of terrorist weapons would be inappropriate because the republican terrorists were not defeated. Others have illustrated that that is not quite accurate. We must face the solid fact that when the IRA announced a cessation of military activities—and that is all that they have said thus far, after all the years—they were losing the struggle and well they knew it. For two years before they had been forced to accept almost 80 per cent of their atrocities being aborted as a result of penetration by the intelligence services. Secondly—and very regrettably—the so-called loyalist terrorists had been inflicting heavier casualties on the IRA than they themselves were inflicting. The IRA were forced to try a more productive ploy. As they look at the steady stream of concessions that have been referred to several times in the debate, they must feel well satisfied with the bargain that they made.
476
It is for all of us in both Houses of Parliament to decide whether we should continue to play with that loaded dice.
Lord Fitt: I believe that it is a reasonable amendment. All that it asks of Government is that the commission set up by the government to inquire into the decommissioning of illegal arms should place its findings before the House. The House could then see at first hand the position of the IRA in relation to its ongoing discussions with the commission.
I and many people in Northern Ireland will be asking these questions. What now is the function of the commission? How many times does it meet? Does it meet once a week, twice a week, every month, every three months or only, as it appears to be, when there is some crisis and P O'Neill issues a statement to General de Chastelain? It is only right and fair that the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives in the House of Commons and here, should know how the commission functions in between statements from P O'Neill, the spokesman for the IRA. The amendment provides that we should not agree with the Bill unless we are made aware of the thinking underlying the commission.
I asked what sanction the Government had if P O'Neill issued a statement to the effect that the IRA were not going to decommission its arms. I was disappointed with the Minister's reply. He said that the sanction is that we may not pass an affirmative order next year or the year after in relation to the Bill. Does the Minister think that that will scare the living daylights out of the IRA? What does it mean if the House says, "We shall not pass that affirmative order"? The IRA will laugh at it.
My noble friend Lord Desai takes an interest in Northern Ireland. The previous amendment asked for a reduction in the time limit from five to three years. In his opening remarks, my noble friend said that if that amendment were passed it would make us look ridiculous. I use his exact words. We look extremely ridiculous in the eyes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland if we continue to make concession after concession to the IRA.
Last year I got fed up with listening to the new word coined with regard to Northern I reland"choreography". Everyone, including the biggest dunderhead in Northern Ireland, ran around talking about choreography. It was supposed to mean that if the Government moved on a particular aspect of the peace process the IRA would make a move in their direction. I have seen no choreography coming from the IRA or Sinn Fein. The happenings since the Belfast agreement are regarded as a big "plus". Stormont was set up. Let me tell the Government that the setting up of Stormont was no great concession by the Government. The IRA and Sinn Fein wanted Stormont set up; they wanted their Government Ministers there. So no great concession was being made. The IRA wanted inter-government. It wanted to see Stormont brought back on its terms.

477
As to choreography, what did we get from Weston Park with regard to arms? The IRA demanded and obtained the dismantling of the watch-towers and army establishments all around the border in Northern Ireland. People could see what was happening. They saw it on television. They saw the British Army dismantling those army outposts. So that was disarming, demobilisation or decommissioning on the British side; but how do we know what happened on the Irish side? General de Chastelain stated that he saw some arms—we do not know how many or how few. The people of Northern Ireland were able to see the decommissioning by the British Army and security forces, but they did not see the decommissioning of the illegal weapons held by the IRA.
I want to make clear that I do not concentrate on the IRA. My remarks include the illegal arms which are still being used by the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Those who watched last night a Channel 4 television programme on the activities of the UDA cannot but be frightened by the continuing holding of arms by that organisation. Anything I say about decommissioning is not directed at the IRA but at all such organisations.
The Minister said that the sanction against the IRA's refusal to decommission is that the Government will not pass an affirmative order. What effect will that have on the loyalist paramilitaries who daily are beating up and knee-capping people in Northern Ireland? Will they be worried about an affirmative order? I again ask the Minister: what will be the effect if this House refuses an affirmative order to carry out this legislation? What can we do? There are no further sanctions that the Government are prepared to make.
I believe that another concession is in the offing. We await an amnesty for IRA republican prisoners who are on the run in the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that the Government will make that concession. Although I totally disagree with such an amnesty, would not it be possible for the Government to say, "We shall not grant this amnesty unless you engage actively in decommissioning your illegal arms"? I do not think that the Government are going to say that; I wish that they would.
The sanction referred to by the Minister is that the Government will refuse to pass an affirmative order. The fact is—the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches agreed with me and we have disagreed more often than we have agreed—that we are asking the Americans to apply sanctions to stop the IRA. The biggest sanction against the illegal arms of the IRA could be brought by the Americans. The Americans can refuse Sinn Fein their visas. They can stop money being taken out of America to fill the IRA coffers. But, in effect, we at the heart of Government in the United Kingdom are saying, "We cannot stop the IRA from holding on to their arms but, please Mr and Mrs America, will you do the job for us?" That is a very sad reflection on the Government of this country.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, informed us that whatever the establishment might believe, the ordinary people of Northern Ireland do not believe that any significant decommissioning has taken place. If the ordinary people of Northern Ireland continue to think the way they do, the electoral consequences in Northern Ireland in the near and medium-term future will not be to the Government's—or to most other people's—liking. That surely is yet another reason for accepting the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendment would not have any effect of any practical virtue. The effect would be only to give the commission a power to lay a report before Parliament, imposing on it no obligation to do so. Indeed, the report could say nothing more than is already in the public domain; it could be of any quality, satisfactory or not to Parliament. I understand the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment but it would not have the slightest legal or practical effect.
There are other questions. The commission was set up following the report of the international body. That report was accepted by the then Conservative Government in this country and the Government in the Irish Republic. Section 7 of the subsequent Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 sets up,
"an independent organisation established by an agreement, made in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland between Her Majesty's Government in the UK and the Government of the Republic of Ireland".
In historic terms, just to complete the narrative, there was also the treaty agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic. As I think your Lordships know, Article 4 of that treaty put upon the commission the duty "to report periodically", not to the Dail in Dublin or to Parliament at Westminster, but.
"to both Governments and, through whatever mechanisms they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland".
I understand and do not disrespect the purpose that the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, seeks. I understand it perfectly because he explained it with admirably clarity. However, Amendment No. 2 would not achieve the conclusion he desires. In fact, such provision would effectively give the commission the determining view on when the legislation should come into effect. If the commission did not report before the end of this month, the possessory amnesty—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden referred—would fall.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. He is also quite right; I understand what the non-effect of passing this amendment would be. I know and believe him when he says that he understands my purposes in moving the amendment. Most of us in this place know that the decommissioning that has taken place is being kept secret at the request of the republican movement.

479
I have even been told that those in that movement might be embarrassed if the information were to get out to their own people.
However, that being as it may, there is a real message. I believe that the Government have heard what has been said on almost all sides by your Lordships about the message to the people of Northern Ireland. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
4.23 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—-(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Registration: provision of signature and date of birth]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after "completed:" insert
"() the national insurance number of each such person, if he has one:"
The noble Lord said: I have received a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, seeking to assure me that the Government will table amendments that are in line with my Amendments Nos. I, 3 and 5 which seek to empower the chief electoral officer to collect a national insurance number, if there is one, on each application to join the electoral register. The noble and learned Lord has also assured me that the Bill will be amended to require absentee voters to state their national insurance number on applications for a postal or proxy vote. His letter concluded by saying that such action will prove effective in our efforts to combat electoral fraud.
I believe that requiring voters' national insurance number, if they have one, in addition to their date of birth and signature would go some way to addressing the issue. I was therefore rather puzzled by the statement in another place of Mr Des Browne that it would be impossible for the chief electoral officer to check all one million or so individuals on the Northern Ireland electoral register. He asked in another place that an amendment that was similar to mine be withdrawn on the grounds that such a provision would be impractical.
I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us what he has in mind and whether Mr Des Browne might have overstated or misunderstood what we are trying to achieve. When we speak about electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, we are not talking simply about foolishness, individual perversity or mistakes; we are talking about behaviour that ts so carefully orchestrated that anyone with any practical experience of Northern Ireland would doubt whether any Sinn Fein Member could have arrived as an elected Member of this Parliament without electoral fraud. My noble friend Lord Fitt was one of the first to suffer from electoral fraud. Joe Hendron also suffered from it in the West Belfast seat that is now held by Gerry Adams. More recently, the constituency which I represented for 18 years and from which I retired with a 14,000 majority suddenly experienced a swing because of orchestrated and organised abuse of normal electoral practice.
Not only do we have to take action to prevent people from illegally registering or illegally acquiring a proxy or postal vote; we also have to ensure that this legislation goes further by specifying the consequences for a party as well as for an individual of the orchestrated abuse of the electoral process. I believe that the legislation is currently weak in that respect.
Even after spending 18 years in another place, I am not a legislative expert. However, I do not believe that it is beyond the competence of Her Majesty's Government to include provisions in the Bill to deal with every aspect of electoral malpractice. I shall not go further into the matter now. I believe that the assurances which I have received in writing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be welcomed by all who want not only the survival of the democratic process in Northern Ireland but its retrenchment. For a number of years, it has been exploited in a manner that has not benefited society. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Without wishing to preempt any noble Lord who might want to speak on the amendment, perhaps I may assist Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, very generously referred to the letter that I wrote to him. I hope that I managed to write on 31st January to everyone in this House who I thought had a similar interest. If I confirm my position I believe that it will help debate on further amendments that are differently grouped but which, none the less, have a connection with the requirement for national insurance numbers to be given.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was quite right to say that these matters were raised in the other place. Indeed, they were also mentioned on Second Reading in this place when I promised faithfully that I would look at them with an open mind if they were improvements to the Bill that could be accepted or perhaps even improved upon consistent with the scheme of the Bill. I have had discussions with Mr Browne. We both pressed the case, which I believed was strongly held in Northern Ireland and

481
also in this Chamber by various noble Lords. It all goes to show that the immediate response is not necessarily the perfect one.
A good deal of further consideration has been given to these proposals. I am most grateful for the energy with which Mr Des Browne has pursued the issue regarding the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral process. We wanted to consider something that was workable and would not impose unduly heavy burdens. Therefore, I can confirm that I intend to bring forward amendments on Report to empower the Chief Electoral Officer to collect a person's national insurance number, if he has one, on his application to the electoral register. We do not propose that someone who does not have a number should simply obtain one for the purposes of registering. However, I should imagine that the vast majority of people do possess a national insurance number.
I turn to a matter that I know worries some noble Lords. We also intend to require absent voters to state their national insurance number on any application for a postal or proxy vote. As regards the noble Lord's other point about false information being given, I can confirm that it is our intention to bring forward further amendments in that respect. Anyone who supplies a false national insurance number, or states that he does not have a number when in fact he has, will be guilty of a criminal offence. We shall also enable the Chief Electoral Officer to make checks with the individual concerned, and with the Department for Works and Pensions, to satisfy himself of the authenticity of the claim made.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that as a positive response to the troubles and concerns expressed in this place. I intervened at this stage because the national insurance issue seems to recur in a number of different amendment groupings.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the Minister for that further explanation. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, it was heartening to receive the noble and learned Lord's letter. This response recognises the scale of fraud that is taking place in Northern Ireland. The amendments to which I have attached my name, both as an originator and as a supporter, have been tabled because noble Lords on these Benches have a passionate belief in the need to maintain as good a democracy in Northern Ireland as we can manage. If members of Sinn Fein sincerely wish to embrace the principle of democracy and of representative government—and, indeed, to enjoy the facilities and the emoluments that go with elected office—it is absolutely vital that they abjure all electoral malpractices; and, equally importantly, that they do everything in their power to stamp them out among their supporters.
Intimidation and personation are the electoral equivalent of beatings and knee-cappings. Democracy requires free and open elections if it is to flourish in Northern Ireland, as anywhere else. Therefore, those of us who hinted on Second Reading that a requirement for national insurance numbers on
482
registration was desirable have tabled such amendments so as to provide the kind of belt-andbraces approach that is necessary.
There is the further question of whether or not identity cards will be available. There is a real problem with many of these technological developments in that they are not always available on time. As was said in the previous debate, we must look forward to normality being restored in Northern Ireland. But until that is so, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, it is absolutely vital that we do everything that we can to shore up best democratic practice. That is why I can say with absolute vehemence from these Benches that we shall have no truck with any kind of electoral malpractice that goes on. If democracy in Northern Ireland is to take root, electoral malpractice has to be abolished. That is why we have tabled various amendments. We are most grateful that the Government feel able to accommodate us, especially as regards the national insurance provisions.
For the sake of brevity, I should point out that we shall not be pressing our amendments that seek to improve the identity card in certain respects, and so on. We look forward to hearing the Government's response on Report to those proposals.
Lord Glentoran: I, too, should like to thank the Minister for his letter. I am also grateful to him for his kindness and courtesy in keeping me informed of the progress that he was making on these matters. If we are able to include a requirement for the provision of national insurance numbers on registration as further proof of identity, it will be a great step forward for the Bill. I do not wish to become bogged down in bureaucracy, but I was a little concerned when the Minister referred to whether or not someone had such a number. I wonder how we can stop people bluffing through the process and claiming that they do not have one—or, indeed, pretending that they do not have one when they have—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was probably speaking rather too quickly in my earlier remarks. Perhaps I may clarify the situation. If someone claims that he does not have a national insurance number when he has, that will be a criminal offence.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We should also like to feel comfortable that the national insurance numbers used in the prevention of fraud will be checked out with the department responsible for such information. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full response.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Having received the letter from the Minister and having heard his confirmatory response in the Chamber, I am content to beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"REGISTRATION: NOTIFICATION OF MULTIPLE REGISTRATIONS
(1) In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (maintenance of registers: annual canvass) there is inserted—
"(5A) The information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purposes of a canvass in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered."
(2) In section 10A (maintenance of registers: registration of electors) and section 13A (alteration of registers) of the 1983 Act at the end there is inserted—
"( ) An application for registration in respect of an address in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered."
(3) Any person knowingly giving false information in response to any requirement of this section is guilty of an offence with liability on summary conviction to—

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

(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both."

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 relates to notifications of multiple registrations, and would make it an offence to "knowingly" falsify information when applying for registration in Northern Ireland. I believe that this is a key element in the fight against electoral fraud. It has long been the case that electors have been able to register at several addresses, provided that they were qualified to do so. Nevertheless, that was with the proviso of voting once only in a single election. To a certain degree this was left to the goodwill of the elector, though the "A form"—-that is to say, the registration form—sets out quite clearly that it is an offence to vote more than once in a particular election. In most incidences it would be almost impossible to detect whether in fact a voter had voted twice; and would, therefore, be open to widespread fraud.
The registers can be checked after the ballot as to who has voted, but without an indication that, for example, Mr Smith of 9 The Glen is the same Mr Smith of 21 Acacia Avenue. If both vote at present, we would he none the wiser as to whether it was the same person. Therefore, under the threat of financial or custodial sanction, my amendment would require would-be electors to indicate that they have registered at another address. I should like to go so far as to say that they should be obliged to give the full details of that address wherever it may be within the United Kingdom.
It has often been said of Irish elections that voters "vote early and often". That quote was first used by Martin Van Buren in his Advice to Electors in 1836, and more often attributed to William Miles of South Carolina in a speech he made to the House of Representatives in 1858 where he stated:
"'Vote early and vote often', the advice openly displayed on the election banners in one of our northern cities".
So that is not something new.
We may not have been displaying that sentiment quite so boldly, but without knowing whether someone is registered on more than one register we have no way of knowing whether they have voted early or often. I hope that my amendment will help prevent
the likelihood of that happening. I also hope that the Minister will be able to give support to my amendment. Indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in an answer to Stephen Hesford in another place said:
"My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the importance of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland to the stability of the political institutions there. On multiple registration, he will recollect that, on Third Reading, I undertook to consider whether there should be a requirement in Northern Ireland for those seeking to register to advise the chief electoral officer whether they were already registered or had tried to register at another address. I can now confirm that I intend to give the chief electoral officer powers to ask those questions during the canvass, starting in autumn 2002. Any person who knowingly gives a false answer to that question will be liable for a fine of up to £1,000—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/01; col. 319.]
We welcome that answer. It will, I understand, apply not only to registering at two separate addresses without indicating at registration; it will also apply to trying to register. The penalty proposed by the answer given in the other place on 5th December 2001 is less than that proposed in my amendment, but we on these Benches would be happy to give way to that lesser penalty, albeit that this is a serious crime which eats into the foundation of our democracy. Nevertheless I must say that we are disappointed it has not appeared as an amendment to the Bill. Can the noble and learned Lord give me the assurance either that he will accept my amendment or that a similar amendment will be forthcoming on Report? I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I recognise that there is a well-founded concern here. My colleague, Mr Browne, has been in touch with a number of different parties and organisations to deal with it. I hope that my response is helpful. We intend to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power by regulation to require electors in Northern Ireland to indicate at registration if they are registered at more than one address. A question such as: "Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?" can be put to electors on application to the electoral register by regulation rather than by an amendment to the Bill. That is what we propose to do.
Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, regulations may authorise the CEO to require persons to give information required for the purpose of his duties as a registration officer. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 enables regulations to make it an offence to fail to comply with, or give false information in pursuance of, any such requisition of the registration officer as I have mentioned relative to paragraph 1. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right to say that we proposed a penalty not exceeding level three, which in Northern Ireland would be 1,000. Therefore, by giving the CEO the power by regulation to ask that question, any person knowingly giving false information will be subject to that penalty.
The noble Lord is also right to say that because of the measures in this Bill the entire electoral registration process in Northern Ireland will change towards the

485
latter part of this year. From this year's annual canvass in October people will be required to complete individual registration forms as opposed to the household forms used in the past which offered greater opportunity for fraud and, of course, for pretending that one did not know what was on the form. People will also be required to give additional personal data on the forms, signatures and dates of birth, and the chief electoral officer will be able to store all that additional information on the new IT system currently being installed.
The question on multiple registration will be included on the new individual registration form at this year's annual canvass and any person knowingly giving false information will be subject to a fine not exceeding level three. I hope that I have met the concerns of which the noble Lord has spoken in the past and that he regards it as a constructive response.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he aware of the practice—steps have already been taken to curtail, if not to prevent, it— of people who live close to the frontier with the Irish Republic but south of the Border coming into Northern Ireland, assuming a Northern Ireland address and registering for a vote on the register? That practice is to some extent curtailed by the three-month residency requirement which is not something that is applied here in Great Britain. I believe that the rolling registration in Great Britain is intended to try to encourage more people to come to the polls. However, because of the likelihood of abuse, there is a three-month residency requirement for Northern Ireland. Yet that in itself is open to abuse if not properly policed. Can the noble and learned Lord assure me that within the canvass, and the basis on which it will be carried out, there will at least be some awareness that there can be an abuse of that kind and that perhaps the canvass form will be drafted in such a way as to make that abuse more difficult?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for that point. I hope that I may take it on board and transmit it to officials to see whether I can give a satisfactory answer. I hope that I can. I am not aware of the extent of the fraud and I hope that I am not being complacent. Virtually every electoral registration system of which I am aware is capable of being interfered with, but I accept that we have to take every possible step that we can to make them foolproof. I shall do the best I can to research a fuller answer for the noble Lord.
Lord Glentoran: I again thank the noble and learned Lord for that most helpful answer. Without wishing to cast any aspersions that I am not taking his comments at face value, or that there is anything else at issue, I should like to take the amendment away at this stage and discuss it with others as regards using regulation rather than legislation. Is it possible for the regulation to be published before Report or Third Reading of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I promise to use my best endeavours. I cannot guarantee, of course, that the process of drafting will be complete, but I shall certainly do my very best to bring that about.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Absent votes and declarations of identity]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 32, after "application" insert "is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Office for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine and"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 10. Both amendments concern absentee voting. That has also been a well used method of creating an artificially high vote by those skilled in these matters. Indeed, I believe that it was said at Second Reading that one party arrived at the electoral officer's desk 24 hours before the election with 10,000 papers for absentee voting. I do not need to say which party was involved but, of course, it was quite impossible for them to be administered.
These amendments suggest that absentee voting should take place only on a form supplied by the electoral officer and that it should be coded and so become traceable. It does not necessarily have to be traced to determine what the vote was, but it should at least be traceable to the party that collected and used it. I believe that this issue represents one of the biggest holes in the Bill still left to be filled. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Very briefly, with those qualifications and what I regard as a strengthening of the position, I support the amendment. I do so because I may have a guilty conscience. I was mainly responsible for arguing that citizens in Northern Ireland should have postal votes for absentee voting. When that system was extended to Great Britain, the Home Office, under previous management, decided that the citizens of Northern Ireland should be deprived of it. Fortunately, I persisted and, in the end, won the battle. But I realise that in that little victory I may have left a few doors open.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I do not believe that there is much difference here between my own approach and that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I do not consider it necessary to insist on the form proposed in Amendment No. 8 because that would mean that only an original form provided by the CEO could be used.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the coding aspect. The Chief Electoral Officer already has plans to take administrative measures to ensure that applications for an absent vote are given a unique identifier. I agree with his caution: one must be careful to ensure that it is not possible to identify the way in which a citizen has voted in a secret ballot. The Chief

487
Electoral Officer plans to introduce either a serial number or a bar code. As he is already going to do that, we do not need to legislate for it.
The reason that I am cautious about the original form is that there may be some circumstances in which a photocopy may be necessary. The coding would still be on it. Therefore, I believe that the coding or the identifier is more important than the fact that the form is the original. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment because I hope that we have met his purpose.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord. We are certainly both going down the same road. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord knows, as I understand it at present the forms can be produced by any or all parties and they are totally uncontrolled. If, in the Bill, the Government are able to get the application forms for absentee voting under control, I shall be most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Electoral identity card]:
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert
"(4A) The information contained in subsection (4)(a) to (d) above shall also be stored electronically on a computer chip incorporated into the electoral identity card provided for by this section.".
The noble Lord said: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can assure me that this matter will be looked at. The amendment simply proposes a technical improvement—one that may well already be envisaged by those who are drawing up the specification for the identity card. But the reason for tabling the amendment is to ensure that such a technical improvement can be made. If the Minister can assure me that the matter will be considered between now and Report, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we are looking at this issue. One problem is that at this stage an electronic chip such as that proposed in the amendment has a relatively short life expectancy only about five years. At present we have no plans to introduce electronic voting. I believe that the true concern of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, relates to a situation in which a card might be used not only for identification purposes, as is its present purpose.
If we were to move to electronic voting—not in your Lordships' House but in Northern Ireland—then of course the electronic chip might well be needed. At present I do not believe that it is needed. In any event, the technology is time-limited to approximately five years and is also rather expensive. Since it is to be used as an identifying document rather than for electronic voting, that is the present state of the Government's thinking. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Smith of Clifton: It is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"VOTERS: SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS
(1) From 1st May 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to election in Northern Ireland, imported into Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c. 2), is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) For sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) there is substituted

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

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

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

(d) a current electoral identity card issued under section I 3C of this Act.

The noble Lord said: This amendment has two purposes, one of which I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord and I know that he is not anxious to include it in the legislation. But at this stage we would still like to see it included. It is possible that I am dealing with the second point first, but the amendment seeks to ensure that the application date is in place before the May 2003 elections take place in Northern Ireland.
Secondly—this is perhaps the more substamive part—the amendment seeks to ensure that all would-be electors are in possession of photographic evidence as to their identity. That matter is referred to in paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill as follows:
"The electoral-ID card proposed by this Bill will be added to the list of specified documents. In due course it is proposed to replace all the non-photographic ID on the list of specified documents (though the Bill makes no provision to this effect). Thereafter the electoral-ID card, the passport and the driving licence would be the only ID acceptable at the polling station. No one will be disenfranchised until they have had every reasonable opportunity to acquire photographic ID".
For those who live in England or outside Northern Ireland, that may sound rather a tall order. But for many years in Northern Ireland we have had photographic identification of every shape and size. If one moved around the Province during the days of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s and wanted to pass reasonably peacefully through police arid Army blocks or one sort and another, one had to have readily available identification which included a photograph of some kind. That was the case, for example, in respect of our driving licences.
The purpose of the amendment, about which we feel strongly, is to require a full photographic "kit", for want of a better word, to be in place before the May 2003 elections. Without it, we would still be on fairly weak ground in relation to identification at polling
booths, particularly if there were a threat of unpleasantness from a terrorist group hanging round the corner. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I believe that this amendment is very important and should be given due consideration. As I said earlier, the reality is that this matter does not concern individuals who seek to be perverse when it comes to abusing the electoral system; it concerns organised abuse overall. Unless a date is specified for photographic evidence to be produced, then perhaps I may assure Members of the Committee that a diktat will go out from the IRA army council stating that no one will acquire or seek to provide photographic evidence when he or she comes to vote.
The backbone of the deception practised by Sinn Fein over the years has been the use of the medical card. It is not only a matter of existing medical cards being used improperly; it is a question of the mass reproduction of such cards. There are virtually factories producing medical cards. If one looks old enough and if one has any semblance of life at all, whether one is entitled to vote or not, one will be able to do so. In terms of getting rid of that most widespread of abuses, photographic evidence will be essential. I stress to the Minister that this amendment is well thought out and essential. It is one to which the Government should give due consideration.
5 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: We on these Benches strongly support the amendment for the reasons that the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Glentoran, have advanced.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have a valid reason for supporting this amendment. One of the factories producing counterfeit medical cards was situated in my former constituency. Despite that, I managed to scrape through.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Glentoran for slightly different reasons from those adopted by other noble Lords who have spoken. At Second Reading I said that I did not propose to revisit the delays that had been occasioned by the Government's hesitation in coming to conclusions on the matters of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland during the previous Parliament. However, I shall run through them briefly now in order to reinforce the need for pressure on deadlines and dates.
In the summer of 1997, under the then Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Office set up a review of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, shortly before the Select Committee in the other place embarked on its analysis. That committee had taken all its evidence and had published its report by March 1998. The Secretary of State gave us grounds to believe that the Government would be able to consider the issues
490
before the European elections of 1999, although I acknowledge that she did not guarantee that conclusions would have been reached or implemented.
In the event, the Government did not publish their report on their review until October 1998 and did not reply to the Select Committee report until May 1999, which was a full year after a reply to such reports can normally be expected. When the final report from the Government on combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland was not published until March 2001—just before the last general election—one could not help but feel that it had not been the Government's first priority. Although I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord who is responding to these debates—he has handled them impeccably—he must not be surprised if there is a certain concern about timetabling on this side of the Committee because of past experience.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely accept that. Our aim is to hold the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland in May 2003. Our target is for the removal of all forms, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. I am concerned about disenfranchising a significant part of the population. Not everyone has a form of photographic identification as mentioned in the amendment—a driver's licence, a passport or a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass. Some people do not have such forms of identification and some people are rather conservative in their approach to identity cards of whatever kind. No doubt the time will come when such a situation will prevail. I am concerned about disenfranchising and disabling people from voting simply because they will not have photographic identification by May 2003.
I pay attention to the validity of the points made. I want to reflect on them, although I do not believe that I shall be able to say that by May 2003 everything will be in such order that everyone in Northern Ireland will be equipped with photographic identification. However, I accept that we should aim for that target.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Can he give the Committee some idea of the percentage of the electorate that he believes do not have a driving licence, a passport or an old-age bus pass? I consider that the percentage would be remarkably small. Have the Government considered the matter or carried out any research? Can they tell me whether my assumption is correct?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is quite right. I do not believe that it is possible to put a percentage on that. I was supported in that view by one of the contributions in the Commons. One of the Northern Ireland Members, Mr Robinson, said:
"I would not vote for the Bill—this is how important the matter is to me—if I thought that the end result would be a significant number of genuine people being unable to vote.

491
He continued that,
"an unspecified number of people, whose total is probably hard to determine, were able to abuse the system".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/01, col. 917.]
It is a real concern. I do not believe that one can put a mathematical percentage on it.
On abuse, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that it would be difficult for him to say mathematically how many people have benefited from the medical card factory in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I am not in a position to be more precise than that. Perhaps I should not have put that question to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, because, with a sinking heart, I feel that he may be about to answer me.
I shall look at the matter again to see whether I can return with something more definite by way of reply, but by May 2003 I doubt that we shall be morally certain that everyone eligible to vote will have photographic identification. I shall research further the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, but I do not believe that I shall be able to be more precise.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down—there is no edge to this remark at all—I should say that the considerations to which he has drawn attention were part of the report of the Select Committee in March 1998. The sadness is that during the previous Parliament time was lost so that we are unable to meet sensible deadlines for what will be an important election.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a perfectly reasonable observation, to which I can offer no satisfactory gloss.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I do not need to make the point that the election about which all noble Lords are talking will arguably be one of the most important elections ever held in Northern Ireland. It is the job of all noble Lords on all sides of the House to do their best to ensure that the electoral system is as clear of fraud and as fair as possible. In doing that we would not want to disenfranchise anyone. However, turning upside down what the noble and learned Lord has said, if one bracket of people can claim not to have any photographic evidence, we shall return to the realms of people saying on polling day, "I do not have any photographic evidence of myself". Without the problems of disenfranchisement, how do we challenge that and manage it? I feel that the onus is on the Government and their officials to ensure that every single soul on the electoral register in Northern Ireland has a form of photographic identification before May 2003.
I shall not divide the Committee this afternoon. In his comments the noble and learned Lord has been extremely helpful. I know that if at all possible he wants to deliver. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"INVESTIGATION BY RETURNING OFFICER
In section 23 of the 1983 Act, after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Subject to subsection (2B), a returning officer shall investigate the conduct of a particular election for which he is the returning officer upon—

(a) receipt of a complaint that the election should be invalid;

(b) being notified of the presentation of a parliamentary election petition; or

(c) being notified of the presentation of a local election petition;

and make any information obtained in the course of such an investigation available to the parties to legal proceedings under Part III of this Act.
(2B) Subsection (2A) shall apply only to complaints or petitions which allege an irregularity in the registration of electors or the misuse of electoral identity cards in that election.—
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are probing amendments. Amendment No. 14 seeks to discover whether the investigative powers of the returning officer can be made more incisive if there has been a complaint about electoral abuse or if there is to be an electoral petition.
I admit that I am not the number one fan of the present Chief Electoral Officer. After the electoral abuse that occurred in my constituency, I found that there was no desire and indeed no willingness on his part to assist in discovering what the extent of that abuse was. Perhaps more attention should be given to this area. My experience was that not only was the Chief Electoral Officer reluctant to bring forward, within a reasonable timescale, information that should have been forthcoming to those who were forced to petition, but those who could have given evidence were absent from the electoral court when the case was heard.
If we are to have sanctions to ensure that there is no electoral abuse then it is incumbent on us all to ensure that there are methods and measures which can be employed to bring to book those who orchestrate—I use that term again—those who systematically orchestrate a fraud on the electorate of Northern Ireland. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 so that I can—and I hope that I shall—learn in some detail what Government intend to do to ensure that those provisions contained in the Bill are effective in preventing fraud and have bite if fraud still occurs. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: The amendment proposes a useful tidying up and strengthening of the Bill in this area. I support that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord. Lord Maginnis, said very courteously that these are probing amendments. So I have to plunge off into the thickets of what I understand electoral law to be.

493
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 seek to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 in relation to parliamentary and local election petitions. One of the problems is that the 1983 Act does not cover local elections in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that that is a legalistic answer, but the noble Lord asked for some detail.
Amendment No. 14 would require a returning officer to investigate the conduct of an election on receipt of a complaint that the election should be invalid or being notified of the presentation of a parliamentary or local election petition. He would be required to investigate only where there was an alleged irregularity in the registration of electors or the misuse of electoral identity cards.
I think that the problem that arises is that an election petition cannot be brought on grounds relating to the register of electors. Appeals about registration decisions can be made to the courts under Sections 56 and 58 of the 1983 Act but not about an election petition. Subject to the appeals on Sections 56 and 58, the register is in effect conclusive.
By the time we have completed and I hope perfected the Bill, taken as a whole—I stress that no individual remedy will prove the complete answer—Members of the Committee are I think agreed that the accuracy of the register will be improved. The individuals seeking the opportunity to vote will have to complete an individual application form. As I said earlier, he or she will have to provide additional personal data which the CEO will be able to check from his own records and make inquiries elsewhere where he has reason to doubt the authenticity of an application.
Amendment No. 15 is different. That extends the period of time in which a parliamentary election petition can be presented from 21 days to 28 days where that petition questioned the election or return on the allegation of irregularity in the registration of electors. It would also extend to 28 days the amount of time within which a petition questioning an election or return, on an allegation of an illegal practice, can be amended with leave of the court.
We have the same problems that I mentioned earlier—an election petition cannot be brought on grounds relating to the register of electors. Election petitions of course can be brought on a whole range of grounds but not on the one on which the noble Lord's amendment is focused. So I do not dissent from his proposition that there are difficulties in electoral law,
494
as I have recently encountered in trying to understand these problems. However, I do not think that his amendments will produce the desired outcome.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 32, leave out from "appoint" to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: This matter has probably been fully debated. The amendment seeks to delete from Clause 7(3) the words,
"and different days may be appointed for different provisions and for different purposes".
The issue relates directly to a previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is a paving amendment for phasing out non-photographic forms of ID. In the light of the helpful assurances that we have had so far, and the assurance that the noble and learned Lord will look at other matters that have been raised today, it is not my intention to press this matter either. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. On Amendment No. 16 we need separate commencements. For instance, we want to bring the provisions in relation to the collection of signatures and dates of birth into force early. But we cannot bring in the statutory questions relating to confirmation of date of birth because that information is provided only during the canvass. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, that canvass will not occur until October of this year. We will not be able, for instance, to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to require a signature and date of birth on the absent vote application to be consistent with what is already registered if the registration has not at that stage been completed. We have a deliberate rolling plan to introduce regulations and powers when they are appropriate to meet current circumstances. I hope that that explanation is a little further help.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past five o'clock.

  Industrial Disputes: Interim Injunctions
  Industrial Disputes: Interim Injunctions
  Judicial Review: Immigration Appeals
  Judicial Review: Immigration Appeals
  Prison Service: Management of Sex Offenders
  Prison Service: Management of Sex Offenders
  Sentencing Framework Review
  Sentencing Framework Review
  Immigration Decisions
  Immigration Decisions
  Internet Access Packages: VAT
  Internet Access Packages: VAT
  National Survey of Time Use
  National Survey of Time Use
  Sports Clubs: Tax Relief
  Sports Clubs: Tax Relief
  Sea Fishing: Net Mesh Sizes
  Sea Fishing: Net Mesh Sizes
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak: Cost
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak: Cost
  Sheep Farming
  Sheep Farming
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Marine Environment: Protection
  Marine Environment: Protection
  Bovine TB
  Bovine TB
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Agricultural Merchants and Saddlers: Medicines Registration Fees
  Agricultural Merchants and Saddlers: Medicines Registration Fees
  Dr Kerr and Mr Haslam
  Dr Kerr and Mr Haslam
  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  Northern Ireland: Right to March
  Northern Ireland: Right to March
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Staffing
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Staffing
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments