Sitting of 7 February 2002

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for further consideration, as amended by the Chairman of Way and Means.
    To be further considered on Thursday 14 February.

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To he read a Second time on Tuesday 12 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Young People (Consultation)
    David Wright: What steps the Government have taken to consult young people about the policies of her Department. [31400]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We are building on existing good practice to integrate young people's involvement in all our activities and, by doing so, implementing the Government's core principles on participation published last November in "Learning to Listen". The development of the Connexions service is an excellent example of how a new service can engage with young people.
    David Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Last week I visited Madeley Court school in my constituency which has a school council and two student representatives on the governing body. Does he agree that that is a good mechanism for consultation on education policy nationally and on the policies of the governing body of that school?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is an innovative approach to the involvement of young people and I congratulate the head teachers and governors on involving young people in that way. We are becoming increasingly conscious—certainly I am as the first Minister for Young People and Learning—of the importance of listening to young people and talking to
    1010
    them about policies that have an impact on their everyday lives. It is important that they are involved in the design, development and evaluation of services.
    At a national level, we are keen to consult young people in a way that they have not been consulted before. For example, when we published our White Paper, we held a consultation day with children and young people. When we produce our proposals on 14 to 19 reforms in the near future, the document will be specifically aimed at young people and we will hold consultation events with them. As we develop new services and evaluate existing ones, it is important that we involve young people.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: What discussions has the Minister had with members of the Youth Parliament about his Department's policies? Will he confirm that all members of the Youth Parliament have been invited to the Department to meet Ministers and officials? What are his plans to ensure continuing dialogue with members of the Youth Parliament and how will he keep in touch with them to give them feedback on the discussions?
    Mr. Lewis: We have a high regard for the contribution that the UK Youth Parliament makes in linking politics, Government and young people together. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that the children and young people's unit has been in dialogue with representatives of the UK Youth Parliament. Deliberations are under way on the level of future Government support for the activities of the Youth Parliament.
    As for discussions with the Department for Education and Skills, many young people who have been involved in the UK Youth Parliament have told me about the benefits of that, both locally and when it meets at a national level. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that every Member of the House has a responsibility to re-engage young people with politics and the political process. One of the biggest dangers to democracy is that far too many young people do not think that deliberations in this House and politics in general are relevant to their everyday lives. The UK Youth Parliament plays an important part in dealing with that.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: It is right to engage young people in consultation because it is mutually beneficial for the school and the young people, and helps the school to run smoothly. However, does my hon. Friend agree that practice varies enormously? Although some young people enjoy that benefit and like being at school, some schools are not so committed to the practice. Will he comment on strengthening guidelines to encourage schools to engage young people so that they can benefit in the way that he described?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree that practice is patchy. Some schools are good at involving young people and are committed to the concept, but others are not. We do not think it appropriate to introduce statute on that policy at the moment, but we should spread good practice guidance and make it clear that in principle the Government support the idea of school councils and other ways to engage

    1011
    young people at school level. We have a long way to go, and we need to build on existing good practice and commitment.
    Mr. Damian Green: I agree with a lot of what the Minister said: consultation with young people is important. He will know from consulting school councils and others that their greatest current concern is the disastrous failure of the exam system in the Edexcel fiasco. The Secretary of State has given Edexcel one month to prove that this summer's exams will not fall into chaos. Do the Government have a contingency plan if Edexcel does not satisfy the Department, and if so, what is it?
    Mr. Lewis: The Government's reaction to the difficulties at Edexcel was immediate, rapid and decisive. We insisted that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority carry out an audit of the difficulties that emerged at the examinations board last summer—that report has recently been published—and the quality assurance person at the QCA has been put into Edexcel to improve practice. We believe that lessons have been learned from the difficulties of recent months, which undoubtedly affected too many young people, and that systems are now in place to ensure that the improvements that we expect at Edexcel are delivered in time for the summer exams.
    Mr. Green: That is an extraordinary reply. We are in the middle of the one-month period of investigation, but the Minister is apparently entirely confident. Either the one-month exercise is a sham, or the Government have no plan B and the exams will go ahead under Edexcel even if Edexcel fails the one-month test. Which is it?
    Mr. Lewis: It is irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to undermine confidence in this country's examinations system. Although the situation at Edexcel is serious in terms of the small number of young people affected by it, the vast majority of young people have every reason to have confidence in the examinations system because they have not been affected by the problems at Edexcel in the past. We have every confidence that the robust quality assurance systems that we have put in place and the interventions of the QCA and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that this summer the examinations system will run as we expect it to.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on the PFI in schools. [31401]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): There are 38 signed PFI projects involving almost 500 schools with a value of more than £1 billion. A further £1 billion has been allocated to projects in various stages of development. The Government have increased the amount of PFI credits for schools from £35 million in 1997–98 to a planned £850 million in 2003–04.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that in public services, it is critical that the quality of service that people need is put in place, rather than the means of its financing or provision? In three schools in my constituency, PFI work is about to commence that will provide them with new classrooms—in one case to replace 14 mobile classrooms—and new facilities that would otherwise not have been provided, or not have been provided on the same scale or in the same time frame.
    John Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am glad to hear about the three schools in his constituency, which are among nine in the authority area that are to benefit from the scheme. The programme has already started and is running on time for completion in December this year. He is right that teachers and pupils will have good-quality buildings maintained to good-quality standards. He mentioned the added value that that can bring. Wirral local education authority officials told my officials that even at the current high levels of Government capital investment through public routes, it would have taken 15 years to reach by conventional means the same state that the PFI contract will deliver for the nine schools in the area.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the fact that after many years of frozen capital spending, my local authority, which is Liberal-Democrat controlled, is working with the Department to build new primary schools in my constituency. However, does the Minister acknowledge that PFI funding is more expensive than conventional public borrowing? Will he explain whether the extra cost will be borne by the improved and expanded schools, or will it be spread across the whole LEA and so be borne by other schools as well?
    John Healey: If the hon. Gentleman's authority has put in a bid for a PH project, it is one of the more than 100 out of 150 LEAs to have done so. That demonstrates the interest in that form of additional financing of capital investment. As for cost, he will know that PFI projects can proceed only if they can demonstrate value for money over conventional means of funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) spoke of a project in his LEA area that will deliver a 9 per cent. lower cost for the programme. Furthermore, payments begin only when services start. Teachers, pupils and schools get new buildings with guaranteed higher maintenance standards.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Many of our constituents deserve new-build in the education system, some of which is 20 years overdue in my constituency. I welcome the PFI work and seek an assurance from my hon. Friend that despite carping from certain quarters, he will not back off from the programme, which provides a sensible way of putting capital into schools in our most deprived communities.
    John Healey: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. PFI is a means to raise additional resources to improve school buildings and to deliver better and more cost-effective public services. Of course, it can also free head teachers and teachers from the business of maintaining and managing buildings, allowing them to concentrate more on standards, education and their

    1013
    students. Despite the carping that my hon. Friend mentioned, it is increasingly popular with schools and local education authorities. Last year's bidding round was oversubscribed by 3:1, the current one by 4:1.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: The Minister will know that I strongly support the genuine transfer of risk to private bodies, but can he tell us the difference between shifting the Government's debt into public-private partnerships and Enron's accounting methods to shift its debt and hide it in offshore partnerships?
    John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman does the PFI programme in schools a serious disservice in trying to make such links. There is no connection or comparison whatever with the methods that that company employed. He is right about shifting the balance of risk, which is key to PFI contracts and the ability to deliver value for money and cost reductions. Shifted risks include risks that the private sector bears in upfront costs until buildings are completed, and risks associated with serious systems and buildings failure during the contract, which is why many local authorities and schools regard the arrangement as a valuable way of bringing new capital finance into the school system.

    School/Further Education Links
    Joan Ryan: What plans she has to encourage further links between schools and further education colleges. [31402]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The Learning and Skills Council is working closely with local education authorities, schools and colleges to secure effective links. Area-based inspections promote collaboration to support a wide range of local provision. We are providing £38 million to promote increased flexibility in the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds.
    Joan Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Both further education colleges in my constituency, Capel Manor college and Enfield college, are conscious of the importance of such links. As he mentioned, funding will be a key issue. The ability to deliver pre-vocational and vocational education is connected to the need to harmonise funding between the FE sector and sixth-form colleges. The FE sector has welcomed the Government's commitment to pursue such harmonisation. Can my hon. Friend say more about the time scale?
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend can inform the two colleges in her constituency that they will find out on 15 February whether their bids have been successful. I confirm that the Government are committed to the principle of convergence and believe that it has to happen. I give her a cast-iron guarantee that the issue of convergence will be considered in the spending review.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that transport is a key issue in getting good contact between FE and schools, especially in rural
    1014
    areas? Does he agree that the Education Act 1996, which allows local authorities to opt out of providing free transport for over-16s, either to schools or FE colleges, must be changed? Does he condemn Labour-controlled Northumberland LEA, which has just introduced a charging policy for all students going to schools or colleges after the age of 16? Does that not fly in the face of his comments about better co-operation between schools and colleges?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree that transport is important, particularly in rural areas, as I have discovered from visiting some of those communities. That is the No. 1 issue, especially for young people, in terms of potential isolation and continuing study. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have introduced education maintenance allowances, which at present are available in only 30 per cent. of the country. Early evidence on EMAs is that participation brings significant benefits. Many young people are using that additional money to pay for transport costs. The Connexions card that we are introducing in September will provide reductions for young people in the cost of transport.
    As for the responsibility of local authorities and passenger transport authorities, the hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that considered the Education Bill. That clarified and made more transparent the way in which local education authorities and passenger transport bodies must work together to ensure that it is clear who is responsible, and that the resources allocated are used specifically to support young people staying in learning post-16.
    Derek Twigg: After my hon. Friend has visited my constituency tomorrow, he may be so impressed that he will want to return to see the excellent collaboration between Halton college of further education and Widnes and Runcorn sixth form college, which has resulted in a new shared Runcorn campus being built. Although collaboration between schools is important, does he agree that to provide the best possible service to people in post-16 education, collaboration between sixth form colleges and further education colleges is just as essential?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree, and I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend in his constituency tomorrow. Co-operation is particularly important in the context of a new 14 to 19 phase of education. The challenge is to achieve seamless collaboration between schools, sixth form colleges, FE colleges, training providers and employers. We need an approach that integrates the various institutions that impact on young people's lives, so that we provide them with the best opportunities and incentives to stay in learning and training.

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: What measures she will take to ensure that the lack of quality assurance that led to fraudulent use of ILAs is not reproduced in successor schemes. [31403]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): Quality assurance methods will be built into the successor scheme to individual learning accounts. A range of options will be explored as we develop the new programme.
    Mr. Simmonds: Does the Minister agree that the lack of quality assurance and monitoring structures in the ILA scheme led directly to a scandalous and probably fraudulent abuse of taxpayers' money? There has also been a shocking and detrimental impact on service providers and recipients, and a terrible impact on people who benefited from ILAs.
    John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that the picture is complex. It is increasingly clear that the lack of quality control measures contributed to the problems experienced by the ILA scheme. There is widespread agreement that pre-registration checks of learning providers need to be strengthened. We will draw the lessons of the ILA scheme. That will help us to set appropriate quality control measures for a future programme. However, I caution him about the need to balance greater protection for the public purse with simplicity for the learner and limited bureaucracy for the provider.
    Jeff Ennis: When does my hon. Friend anticipate announcing the successor to ILAs, and what role does he envisage for local learning and skills councils in the successor scheme?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend, who serves on the Select Committee on Education and Skills, will acknowledge that the ILA scheme was innovative and important in many respects, but there are important lessons for us to learn. We are undertaking a consultation with all learning providers under the scheme, with partners who have an interest in the future of the programme, and with learners who opened ILA accounts. I know that he will find this frustrating, but it is too soon to say with certainty when we will be able to relaunch the scheme. Above all, there is a need to get to the bottom of what went wrong before we can make sensible decisions about the shape of the programme for the future.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Is it not clear that the Government were warned about the likelihood of fraud in the system as early as summer 2000? What does the Minister have to say to my constituent Stephen Good, a legitimate ILA provider who has had to place his property on the market because of the Government's incompetence and complacency? When will he be told when his situation will be rectified?
    John Healey: In the preparation of the ILA scheme and its introduction in autumn 2000, we had discussions with a wide range of partners. We had to strike a balance in the design between control and quality assurance methods and a non-bureaucratic system that was easy for the learner and the provider. With hindsight, as I acknowledged in response to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), it is clear that the quality assurance arrangements were simply not good enough. That part of the system will be stronger for the future scheme. A small number of unscrupulous learning
    1016
    providers undermined and abused the scheme. I take the constituent of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) to be a legitimate provider who, like many others, made much of the scheme to benefit a range of learners across the board.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the glee shown by Opposition Members—[Interruption.] There is perhaps synthetic anger too, but is not their attitude symptomatic of the reasons why the public service cannot be innovative? We did the same when we were in opposition, so I am not making a cheap party political point. The individual learning account was a superb and innovative scheme that put purchasing power—Opposition Members should be pleased about this—in the hands of the individual learner, thereby giving them the power to shape the content of their learning. I share my hon. Friend's dismay about the administrative problems and urge him—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.
    John Healey: I do not want to underestimate the scale or nature of the problems, including those that we are unearthing in our investigations. My right hon. Friend is right that the scheme was important and innovative and put power in the hands of learners for the first time. That is part of the reason why the scheme in its short life encouraged new learners and people who were returning to learning for the first time. It is also part of the reason why one in six of those who used ILAs had no previous qualifications and why one in four had not done any learning in the previous year. He may not be aware that the Learning and Skills Council agrees with his analysis and in yesterday's Select Committee hearing described the ILA as the single most successful attempt to attract new learners.
    Alistair Burt: Is it not the case that the simplicity and innovation of the scheme went so far as to ensure that the only criteria that the learning provider had to offer the contractor to gain access to Government money were a name, address and telephone number, and details of the bank account where the cash was to be sent? No other validation whatever was required. Is not the story very simple? The Government set up the ILA scheme and were warned about possible abuses, but ignored those warnings. They encouraged new providers into the market, but when the abuses became so obvious that they could not be ignored, they announced a date for the closure of the scheme. Then they brought forward even that date, prematurely ending the scheme and closing it overnight, leaving millions of pounds owed to providers and breaking faith with thousands of students who expected to go on courses. They also caused job losses, company failures and a disastrous loss of confidence in decent adult education initiatives. Can he hazard a guess as to whom the public hold responsible for this scandal, and will he meet some of the learning providers face to face, so that he can explain to them precisely what he intends to do about it?
    John Healey: I have met learning providers face to face. Officials in the Department are in constant contact with them and, as I explained to the hon. Member for

    1017
    Boston and Skegness, we are undertaking extensive consultation to draw on their experience to help us to design the future scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right about the registration of learning providers: it was registration, and it was clear from the outset that it was not a quality assurance stamp of approval from the Government on either the provision or the provider. As I have explained, that is something that we will have to change in a successor scheme.
    On the decision that we very regrettably had to make to bring forward the closure of the scheme from 7 December to 23 November, it must be becoming increasingly clear to the hon. Gentleman that not to have taken that decision with immediate effect would have risked substantial loss of public funds. That was the reason that we took the decision, and that is why it was the right decision to take at that time.

    GCSEs
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What recent assessment she has made of the performance at GCSE of (a) pupils at grammar schools and (b) their equivalent intellectual cohort in comprehensive schools. [31404]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Department has not made a recent assessment. An assessment carried out two years ago showed a modest advantage to comprehensive schools.
    Dr. Ladyman: I have to confess that I am baffled. As my hon. Friend said, the assessment done by the Department a couple of years ago showed an advantage to comprehensive schools. A wide range of academic research now shows a consistent pattern of comprehensive education out-performing selective education. When a clear, consistent pattern illustrates that selective education is failing our children, why will the Government not face up to their responsibility to deal with those local education authorities that are entirely selective? Will the Minister again consider my suggestion, which is now supported by people campaigning for as well as against grammar schools, that an independent inquiry be held into the corrosive effects of selective education?
    Mr. Timms: The academic debate on this subject still rages. The Government's position is that we do not favour selection by ability at the age of 11; there will be no new grammar schools under this Government. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about these arrangements, particularly in Kent. In the White Paper, we set the target that by 2004 at least 20 per cent. of pupils in every school should achieve five good GCSEs, rising to 25 per cent. by 2006. A total of 372 schools did not achieve the 25 per cent. target last summer; 28 of those were in Kent. Clearly, extensive work will need to be done with those schools in Kent to achieve the targets, with support from my Department. That is where I urge my hon. Friend and the many others who are concerned about these issues to focus their attention.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Are five good GCSE grades today the equivalent to five GCE O-levels
    1018
    of grade C and above in the past? To what extent has improvement in overall examination results been assessed as due to grade inflation over the years?
    Mr. Timms: That is certainly not the explanation. We have careful, thorough quality control procedures in place to ensure that standards are maintained. There is indeed broad comparability between the levels to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Teachers, schools and pupils have worked very hard, and that is the reason that we have hit the target of at least 50 per cent. of our young people getting five good GCSEs a year ahead of our deadline. That is down to the hard work and success of schools.
    Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's reaffirmation of the Government's opposition to selection by ability at the age of 11. But, in view of the endemic divisiveness, administrative chaos and waste of potential that are inherent in all the selective systems—let us remember that they exist in almost a quarter of our local authorities—is there not now an overwhelming argument for a national inquiry into the impact of selection on those children who are not selected?
    Mr. Timms: Our priorities should be clearly focused on raising standards across the entire secondary system. It is clear from the exchange that we have just had that we are succeeding in that. In the case of existing grammar schools, we believe that parents should be able to determine locally whether the arrangements should continue.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The Minister seems somewhat confused. On one side, he says that he wants standards raised, whereas, on the other, he ignores the way in which standards can be raised. It was a pleasure to see the Secretary of State, Ministers and most Labour Members, including the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), joining us in the Lobby last night and voting to defend grammar schools. Perhaps I can help the Minister with his research. Has he not seen the National Foundation for Educational Research survey on the impact of selection on pupil performance? It says that
    "within the middle ability range, young people in grammar schools perform significantly better than those in comprehensives".
    That is very clear. Will the Minister admit to the hon. Member for South Thanet, once and for all, that he is wrong that selective education is a "corrosive evil"? It is not; it is one way to raise standards for huge numbers of pupils across the country. Will the Minister accept that, and will he defend grammar schools?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Lady is a little confused. The votes last night were about faith schools, not grammar schools. The assessment made a couple of years ago indicated an advantage to comprehensive schools, but I am aware that the debate rages. She should support comprehensive schools and encourage rising standards across the entire secondary system, as we are doing. The evidence is clear that we are succeeding.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Is it not the case that numerous surveys have proved that children do not perform better in grammar schools? Is that not the fundamental question that we must face? Does not the

    1019
    Conservative party's obsessive interest in pursuing selective education fail to take account of the number of children who would lose out through a selective system because they would go to second-class and lower-quality schools?
    Mr. Timms: Let me draw my hon. Friend's attention to the assessment made a couple of years ago. Research on all 15-year-olds in grammar schools in a particular area found that 96.4 per cent. of those youngsters achieved five good GCSEs. A second group included the top 25 per cent. of 15-year-olds in comprehensives, and 100 per cent. achieved five good GCSE grades.

    School Autonomy
    Richard Younger-Ross: If her Department will consult on regulations to give successful schools greater autonomy. [31405]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): Yes, we shall. I anticipate that the consultation will take place later this year. We set out our thinking in a policy statement that was provided to members of the Education Bill Standing Committee and placed in the Library of the House.
    Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for his response. If greater autonomy is seen to be good, will it not benefit all schools? Are not struggling schools often those that require greater flexibility? Will he assure the House that there will be greater flexibility and less Government interference?
    Mr. Timms: There certainly will be greater autonomy as a result of the measures agreed by the House when the Education Bill was considered on Report yesterday. We are developing our policy of intervening in inverse proportion to success. When a school is successful in terms of its achievement at assessment and in its leadership, we want to increase the autonomy available to it, because we can be confident that it will use that extra freedom to raise standards.
    What we want, and what the Bill will make possible, is for our best schools to lead the next wave of education reform. Of course, under the separate power to innovate, which is also in the Bill, it will be possible for other schools to make proposals to help them raise standards. However, they will not have the same automatic entitlement that is available to our best schools, for the reasons that I have explained.
    Caroline Flint: I served in Committee on the Education Bill and was pleased to support it. As my hon. Friend knows, specialist schools are also part of innovation in our children's education. Will he consider the regulations on funding, because unfortunately Rossington high school, which is seeking specialist school status, has been turned down, not because of its bid but because, in a coal-mining area, we do not have the companies on our doorstep to fund it? The parish council has agreed to put some money in, but the regulations prevent it. Will he look into that?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the valuable contribution of specialist schools in raising
    1020
    standards. I understand the concerns about sponsorship. That is why we support the Technology Colleges Trust in working with schools to help them raise the sponsorship that they need.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that there is great rejoicing in King's Lynn over news that Park high school is to receive specialist technology status? If he comes to that school, he will be very welcome indeed, and they may even unveil a picture of him in the assembly hall. However, is he aware that St. Clement's high school has had its bid turned down for the third time, even though in 2000 people from the school were invited to No. 10 because it was one of the most improving schools in the country? If he goes to that school, they will probably burn an effigy of him. Will he come up to west Norfolk and visit the two schools in the near future?
    Mr. Timms: I was aware of the rejoicing in King's Lynn, because the hon. Gentleman told me about it. There will be rejoicing in all the nearly 150 schools that gained specialist status in this round. Schools have to go through a very rigorous process to attain specialist status, and many have to apply two, three or more times before succeeding, but the process is a very valuable one in helping them to raise their standards and develop strong plans for future improvement. I think that, on reflection, the hon Gentleman would support that.

    Professional Qualifications (Access)
    Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on schemes to improve access to professional qualifications in (a) health and (b) education for people working in low-paid jobs in those fields. [31406]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): Good progress is being made in both health and education to extend access and opportunity to individuals to gain professional qualifications. We have several initiatives in place and we are developing more. For instance, in the national health service, low-paid staff can receive £150 towards work-related training. In education, we are developing a new qualifications framework; we have foundation degrees in place; and we are funding a range of pilot projects to discover better work-based routes for gaining professional qualifications.
    Fiona Mactaggart: A few days ago, I gave 117 teaching assistants in the Slough education action zone certificates for training courses that they had been on. Many of them would be capable of gaining professional qualifications, including qualified teacher status. What action will my hon. Friend's Department take to help areas such as mine that have a teacher shortage and have some very talented people who lack education qualifications to work in their schools? We need to provide a ladder of qualifications to give us in the end the teachers we so seriously need.
    Margaret Hodge: First, I congratulate those people to whom my hon. Friend gave those certificates. That is the important first step in the progression, perhaps finally towards a career as a teacher. We have a whole range of ladders—I call them climbing frames, because people can

    1021
    go across as well as up—to develop and progress within one's career. The fact that we now have nearly 100,000 teaching assistants working through local education authorities gives those people the opportunity to progress.
    There are many innovative examples that I could share with the House. Let me cite just one: Lancashire LEA has 130 teaching assistants this year who will get their qualifications to become teachers and will work in the primary sector, and it is now seeing how it can extend those opportunities to people in the secondary sector.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Minister accept that many low-paid workers can supplement their incomes by learning, for example, aromatherapy, which is taught in my constituency, or perhaps herbal medicine, or reiki—channelled energy—which is becoming increasingly popular? Will she ensure that there are joined-up discussions with the Department of Health to ensure that some of those courses get help? Will she remind the Secretary of State that there are 50,000 complementary practitioners in Britain wanting to work in the health service?
    Margaret Hodge: We have frequent discussions with the Department of Health about training opportunities, and we are working closely with that Department to create opportunities through the NHS university, which will develop over time. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that, also over time, we should bring complementary medicines into the health service.

    Overseas Students
    Kevin Brennan: What recent discussions she has had with the university sector about standards in the awarding of degrees by UK universities to students studying overseas; and if she will make a statement. [31407]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): My Department has regular discussions with the sector about the standard of UK degrees. For courses delivered overseas, universities should abide by the Quality Assurance Agency's code of practice on the academic management of collaborative programmes.
    Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that there may be a temptation for some universities, in an understandable desire to improve their financial position, to skimp a little on standards for overseas degrees? Does she share my particular concern that the monitoring of standards may not be good enough for some degrees being taught in foreign languages overseas? Will she agree to keep a close eye on the situation and ensure that degrees from British universities are of as high a standard when they are awarded to students overseas as they are in the UK?
    Estelle Morris: I would share my hon. Friend's concern if we did not have the Quality Assurance Agency, which is responsible for monitoring standards. I agree with him that it is essential that standards are monitored, and where there is a franchise arrangement, and the place of learning is some distance from the parent organisation, we will always ensure that standards are maintained. I must say to my hon. Friend that it is right for universities
    1022
    in the UK to offer their courses abroad—that is the nature of the world in which we live—and I am immensely proud of how popular many UK university courses are abroad. I do take my hon. Friend's point, and the work of the QAA is vital for standards.

    Higher Education (Wales)
    Adam Price: What plans she has to implement the National Assembly for Wales's proposals for the restructuring of higher education in Wales. [31408]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): Policy on higher education in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. I understand that the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the Assembly will shortly make a response to the recent policy review of higher education, in the form of a 10-year strategy for higher education in Wales.
    Adam Price: I thank the Minister for her reply, but I am puzzled by it—and also by the quotation in The Western Mail from the departmental spokesman, who said:
    "There is no possibility at all of any legislation"
    to implement the proposals of the National Assembly's higher education review. That is the most important review of higher education in Wales since the establishment of the university of Wales, and we are constantly told that the knowledge base is vital to the economic future of areas such as Wales, yet the Department also tells us that there is no legislative time for the National Assembly's proposals. Does the Minister not agree that decisions on the future of higher education should be made in Wales, and will she give the Assembly the directive powers over the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales that it has asked for?
    Margaret Hodge: The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales has not asked us to extend any powers, because she has not yet responded to the consultation paper that has been under consideration in Wales. If and when she does, and if and when she asks us for additional powers, we will consider the request. I must also point out that almost half of Welsh undergraduates study in English higher education institutions.

    Performance and Innovation Unit
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps she is taking to improve the co-ordination of her Department with the performance and innovation unit. [31409]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): Officials and Ministers in our Department are in regular contact with the performance and innovation unit about its current and future work programme. When specific PIU projects relate to departmental policy, both Ministers and officials have close working relationships with the PIU. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey),

    1023
    who has responsibility for adult skills, was sponsor Minister for the recently published PIU report on adult skills.
    Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee's job is to track the Executive and hold them to account. Can she help us to gain access to more information about what is happening in the PIU and in No. 10 generally, because increasingly we see decisions being made, influence being exercised and policy being formed in places that we have not been able to reach through the traditional Select Committee methods? Can my right hon. Friend help us, even by telling us in detail what education policy groups are meeting and working on those subjects in the PIU and through other avenues in No. 10?
    Estelle Morris: With the greatest respect, if my hon. Friend is having difficulty securing information in his capacity as Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, that is a matter for him, not for me. My Department has close working relationships with units, organisations and other Departments throughout Whitehall. At the end of the day, we are in the same Government and we follow the same policies, but I should make it absolutely clear that my Ministers and I take decisions on education and skills. Responsibility and accountability rest with us.

    The Solicitor-General was asked—

    Crown Prosecutions (North Yorkshire)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: How many successful Crown prosecutions there were in North Yorkshire between (a) 1 January and 31 December 2000 and (b) 1 January and 31 December 2001. [31435]
    The Solicitor-General(Ms Harriet Harman): In 2000, there were 12,000 cases in North Yorkshire, of which 98 per cent. resulted in convictions, and in 2001 there were 11,000 cases, of which 99 per cent. resulted in convictions. As the hon. Lady knows, some cases do not make it to trial, but North Yorkshire's discontinuance rate is lower than the national average.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the Solicitor-General for her reply. Will she take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the North Yorkshire Crown Prosecution Service on its excellent recent report? Does she share my concern that the figures that she quoted do not reflect the fact that reported crimes in the year ending March 2001 totalled more than 51,000? There is a large discrepancy between reported crimes and successful prosecutions.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the hon. Lady's congratulations to North Yorkshire's chief crown prosecutor, Rob Turnbull, and his team will be warmly received. They have done a good job, received a good inspectorate report and their figures are good. In particular, they have reduced to 51 the number of days that it takes to bring a young offender to justice.
    1024
    The hon. Lady raises the wider point of what happens before a case reaches the CPS, whether such a case is investigated by the police once reported and whether evidence is sufficient to proceed to prosecution. In North Yorkshire, there is a good, co-operative relationship, which the inspectorate described as better than elsewhere in the country. Co-operation between the CPS and the police has ensured that, if there is proper evidence, cases can be brought. However, it is clear that the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department—indeed, the Government as a whole—are concerned that there should not be crimes for which no offender is brought to justice.
    Mr. John Burnett: Can the Solicitor-General say approximately how frequently such prosecutions were contracted out to solicitors and barristers in private practice in North Yorkshire during that period? Will she tell us—not just in respect of North Yorkshire but, more importantly, generally—how her Department ensures that costs charged to it by solicitors and barristers in private practice are competitive, reasonable and provide good value for public money?
    The Solicitor-General: I do not have the exact figures, either for North Yorkshire or nationally, but I will provide the hon. Gentleman with them. He makes a very important point, but there are certain principles that we want to adhere to. In instructing agents, outside solicitors or barristers, the CPS must be fair to the public purse, but the relationship between the defence and the prosecution must also be fair. We do not want a well resourced prosecution facing down an under-resourced defence, or vice versa.
    Furthermore, I hope that, for positive rather than negative reasons, there will be fewer instructed independent counsel and private solicitors in future. I want CPS staff to act as designated caseworkers, bringing their own cases on the Crown's behalf to the magistrates court, and CPS lawyers to act as High Court advocates, bringing their own cases in the Crown court. The CPS is taking forward that initiative, but, as I said, I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with the detailed figures that he has requested.

    Manslaughter
    Vera Baird: If she will give guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service on charging manslaughter where people have killed partners who have inflicted grave domestic violence on them. [31436]
    The Solicitor-General: I am not planning to give guidance to the CPS on charging manslaughter where people have killed partners who have inflicted grave domestic violence on them. The CPS will always consider the full background circumstances of a case when deciding whether the charge should be murder or manslaughter, including whether the defendant has acted under provocation or with diminished responsibility. I am working closely with the CPS to ensure the vigorous prosecution of domestic violence.
    Vera Baird: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a practical problem follows on from the failure to give that advice to prosecutors as yet? I am obliged for her answer, which reveals that things may

    1025
    change. The problem is that women who kill as a consequence of domestic violence are often acting in self-defence. Although they may appear to use excessive force, it is because the ferocity of an earlier attack has put them in great fear. Of course, that issue must be tried by a jury. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that jurors rarely try domestic violence cases in which the charge is murder because judges permit a woman who has killed in the heat of the moment under pressure to plead guilty to provocation manslaughter—a plea that she must take or run the risk of the life sentence that follows murder—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is far too long and, when I stand, the hon. Lady should be seated.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises some important and difficult issues. It is true to say that there is continuous consideration of those issues. We want to get it right and there are no easy answers. As she knows, each case has to be judged on the basis of the individual circumstances. Of course, we want to be sure that prosecutors study all the background to the case and have all the information. In the case that she raises, prevention is better than cure and we do not want domestically violent husbands to be murdered by their wives; we want them to be prosecuted, or we want the violence to be prevented in the first place.

    Civil Service Pension Scheme
    Lynne Jones: If she has made an assessment of the risk of the Government facing legal action under the Human Rights Act 1998 over the civil service pension scheme. [31437]
    The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question without breaching the long-established Attorney-General's convention that neither whether the law officers have advised, nor if they have what the advice was, is revealed outside Government.
    Lynne Jones: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I live in hope, which will probably not be realised, that in the answer to my supplementary question she may shed more light on Government thinking. She will be aware that the majority of private pension schemes extend benefits to unmarried partners, that Members of Parliament have voted to extend benefits to their partners and that, later this year, the civil service
    1026
    pension scheme will change to recognise unmarried partners. In view of those developments, does she agree that the Government are vulnerable to challenge from teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers and members of the armed forces in long-term unmarried partnerships who are denied benefits for their partners?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has raised some important matters, but they are policy issues for the Cabinet Office. She then worked her way back to asking me the original question about legal advice, which I cannot answer except to say that, as regards the Human Rights Act, all Departments and Ministers are very concerned that all their actions should comply with the European convention. To the extent that we can, we assist them in doing that. It is not only secrecy that prevents me answering that question; there is a line of accountability which ends with the deciding Ministers and not the advising Ministers. In this respect, the Law Officers are advising Ministers, not decision makers. We are the deciding Ministers on the other issues about which I have been asked and we are fully accountable to the House.
    Mr. William Cash: Is the Solicitor-General prepared to accept some advice from a Conservative Front Bencher on the question of the Human Rights Act, bearing it in mind that I want to be helpful? If there is a problem with the civil service scheme, is she aware that in the recent case of R v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms, Lord Hoffmann made it crystal clear that if Parliament chose to do so, it could legislate contrary to the fundamental principles in the European convention on human rights, providing the actions taken by Parliament were clear and unambiguous? The option is there. Will she pass that advice on to Ministers?
    The Solicitor-General: I will draw Ministers' attention to the Hansard containing the hon. Gentleman's comments, but in an ingenious and, as we would expect, complicated way he has asked the same question as was asked earlier on what our legal advice is. He has given me his advice, for which I thank him, and hon. Members and Ministers will read it.[Interruption.] As the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), points out, he has given it for free, which is welcome, but I cannot answer that point. I cannot engage in a discussion about the Human Rights Act's application to this particular point of policy. He will have to get one of his colleagues to ask the Minister with policy responsibility at the Cabinet Office.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker I wish to make a statement on nationality, immigration and asylum.
Last October I informed the House of the new strategic direction for that crucial area. Today I am publishing a White Paper to be followed by legislation in this Session.
Significant progress has already been made. The first induction centre was opened on 22 January in Dover. Registration cards were launched last week and are now being issued to new asylum seekers. We have launched the highly skilled migrant programme. New border security controls are in place, following my announcement on 19 September. As of last week, asylum seekers are no longer being held in prison. I confirm that vouchers will be replaced by cash by the autumn, together with action against fraud and the development of a more robust, faster and efficient system.
The White Paper takes forward our agenda by offering an holistic and comprehensive approach to nationality, managed immigration and asylum that recognises the inter-relationship of each element in the system. No longer will we treat asylum seekers in isolation or fail to recognise that there must be alterative routes to entry into this country.
Our policies must command trust, confidence and respect from the wider community. The British people demand coherence in policy and efficiency in administration.
Our starting point has been the development of a sense of belonging and community. Confidence in our identity and citizenship allows us to welcome those who come to the UK as refugees or legal migrants more readily.
I confirm that, to give new meaning and value to the acquisition of British nationality, we will introduce a number of key reforms: there will be new light-touch arrangements to ensure that those who take on nationality have the language skills and basic knowledge of our society that are needed to contribute fully; there will be ceremonies at which the confirmation of citizenship can be celebrated; and we will modernise the oath of allegiance to provide new wording to make clear the fundamental rights and duties of citizenship. That will be a citizenship pledge.
The White Paper sets out the routes by which men and women can work legitimately in this country. In today's global economy, that is crucial both to our competitiveness and prosperity.
My new proposals include the development of routes for seasonal or short-term casual working; consultation on reform to the working holidaymakers scheme to make it less restrictive; and enabling students graduating in the UK to switch into the work permit scheme.
This White Paper sets out an end-to-end revision of the asylum system. The new process will track and support asylum seekers from induction, through reporting and accommodation, to removal or integration.
Work has started on the new trial accommodation centres which will be mandatory for those designated asylum seekers who are claiming public support. The
1028
centres will offer education, health care and legal and interpreting services. Opportunities for volunteering and other purposeful activities will also be available, as will appropriate language support.
For those refused asylum, secure removal centres will enable us to protect the integrity of the system through early removal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is nice to have the support of the Opposition in such large numbers. I hope that the consensus continues.
Without an agreed and legitimate route for asylum seekers to enter this country, it has been inevitable that men and women desperate to seek refuge would put their lives at risk. That is why I am announcing today that we will set up the new gateway for those seeking to settle in Britain. This will be operated under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Legitimate refugees who come via this gateway will no longer have to attempt a hazardous journey across the channel. This will be a major step in regularising legitimate entry alongside our managed economic migration programme.
In addition, to secure a robust foundation on which we can build, I intend to undertake a full comprehensive audit of existing asylum claimants. Longstanding cases will receive urgent attention.
The White Paper also sets out substantial changes to the whole asylum appeals process. Far too many appeals and judicial reviews are designed to delay and frustrate. I am therefore announcing today that we will simplify the one-stop appeals process; set closure dates for appeal hearings to stop multiple adjournments; and make the Immigration Appeal Tribunal a superior court of record.
In addition, we will increase the capacity of the adjudication system by 50 per cent., to a total of 6,000 a month, during the course of this year; and we will expand the number of removal places to 4,000.
I can also confirm that I intend to close Campsfield House. This outdated centre is no longer appropriate in the 21st century. These places will be transferred to the new high-standard removal centres.
My reforms will protect fundamental rights, stop abuse of the system, and enable more effective administration and processing of claims. Those working in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be able to do their job more effectively, and I expect both greater productivity and efficiency.
Let us be in no doubt. We need to reduce the pull factor by clamping down on both clandestine entry and illegal working.
The Proceeds of Crime Bill will ensure that we can seize the assets of criminals involved in smuggling and trafficking people. In addition, the maximum penalty for those facilitating illegal entry will be raised to 14 years.
I can also announce that we will legislate to tackle trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. That will be a stepping stone to more wide-ranging legislation dealing with sexual exploitation. In addition, together with our European and international partners, we will introduce tougher border controls and step up action.
A high-level steering group of business and trade union leaders will be established to take forward proposals to tackle illegal working; and, as I announced on Tuesday, we intend to launch a consultation on entitlement cards to be published in the spring or early summer. I want to

1029
avoid misunderstanding should such a card be agreed, failure to carry it would not be a criminal offence. That should allay fears as regards stop and search.
Alongside those measures, we will act against the worrying practice of fraudulent marriages. We will increase the probationary period from one to two years; consult on a new non-switching provision to prevent people from applying to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage, after entering through a different category; and encourage communities with a culture of arranged marriages to look to those already resident in the United Kingdom.
Finally, I know that the rules on family visitor visas have been a cause of great concern to hon. Members. I have an open mind on how best to improve the system—not least for those seeking urgent entry on occasions such as bereavement. The Government would thus welcome ideas on how best to provide guarantees or bonds. That might be undertaken not simply by individuals or families, but by the provision of a community bond. I realise that we have to get that right, so I encourage positive suggestions on the best way to proceed.
Our future social cohesion, economic prosperity and integrity depend on how well we rise to the global challenge of mass migration, communication and flight from persecution. We have a history of trade and migration that has brought us wealth and prosperity over the centuries.
Nevertheless, building trust and confidence to secure the support of the British people is essential. By doing that, we can create a country that is open to skills and enterprise, but not to exploitation. This is a Britain with a balanced approach to nationality and migration—a country of which all of us can be proud.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I thank the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in letting us see the statement and the White Paper in advance.
Some months ago, when the Home Secretary first made a statement about his proposals for changing the UK's asylum arrangements, I responded that the aim of the Conservative party—like that of the Government—is to see the establishment of an asylum system that is humane, effective and fair; that rapidly provides a safe home for the innocent victims of persecution; and that, at the same time, prevents the asylum system being misused as a means of evading our immigration rules. I have since reiterated that position, and I re-state it today. We welcome unreservedly the fact that the Home Secretary is genuinely trying to make those joint aims a reality.
May I gently urge that, in future, when the Home Secretary has such interesting and important proposals, he restrain himself—if that is humanly possible—from using partial leaks of his White Papers to the media as a way of announcing the proposals? I recognise the temptation, but the interests of rational debate in this country will be best served in the long run if we are all able to discuss the full statement that we have all heard on the basis of a White Paper that at least some of us have had the opportunity to read.
When the Home Secretary made his initial statement, many questions were necessarily left unanswered. Some of them have been answered in the White Paper. We welcome the increase in the capacity of the adjudication system, the new UNHCR gateway—a
1030
massive improvement—and the news in the White Paper that there will be health care and interpretation facilities in the accommodation centres.
At least at a first reading, however, some of the questions remain unanswered. It is not clear in the White Paper whether the accommodation centres will, in practice, normally provide legal assistance on site, still less whether decision makers and adjudicators will be available on the spot. We remain uncertain whether the residence requirement set out in paragraph 4.37 of the White Paper will really be enforceable on the basis of entitlement to benefits, given the fact that many asylum seekers do not take up benefits in any case. Will the Home Secretary undertake to let us have those critical details by the time that we come to debate the Bill?
In the months since the initial statement, we—like the Home Secretary and his ministerial team—have had time to reflect on the causes of the shambles that he has gallantly admitted to having inherited from his predecessor, the current Foreign Secretary.
As the Home Secretary will recognise from our recent debates, we are persuaded that a significant part of the problem faced by hard-working officials arises from the sheer weight of numbers, which is in part generated by the disproportion between the share of the burden borne by the UK and the share of the burden borne by France.
I hope that the Home Secretary will take this further opportunity to state a commitment to achieving the closure of Sangatte; a renegotiated bilateral agreement with France when that becomes possible—to take the right hon. Gentleman's point—after the French elections; and in due course, as he says in the White Paper, the replacement of the Dublin convention with some meaningful and effective arrangement for distributing the burden fairly around the EU and other European countries. Will the Home Secretary accept that, in the absence of such changes on the international front, it is highly unlikely that he will achieve the fulfilment of his, and of our, ambitions?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He's the Home Secretary's puppy.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman chunters happily that I am the Home Secretary's puppet. That is presumably because he cannot understand the possibility that, as a matter of fact, there could be agreement about sensible measures and constructive opposition.
Turning from asylum to the related issue of economic migration, we note with interest the more detailed proposals, contained in the White Paper, to increase the rate of permitted economic migration. We join the Home Secretary, I hesitate to tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in believing that, in a crowded island, there are environmental and social reasons for limiting the rate of immigration, but we join the Home Secretary also in the acknowledgment that the British economy and British society have much to gain from a controlled inflow of talented and energetic people who seek to better their circumstances by setting to work and engaging as entrepreneurs in our society. We strongly welcome the Home Secretary's moves towards ensuring that all those entering the country as migrants should be proficient in English and should acquire an early understanding of our constitutional arrangements.

1031
We will look carefully and constructively at the details of the proposals put forward in the White Paper for the amendment of the immigration rules, and we anticipate an interesting and fruitful debate when the Bill comes before the House.
Although no one can doubt the work that has gone into the White Paper, will the Home Secretary agree that the proposals, both on asylum and on immigration, will ultimately be judged not by the nobility of the aspirations that they undoubtedly represent, but by their effectiveness in practice?
Can the Home Secretary tell us what targets and criteria he will now establish to enable the House to hold him to account two or three years hence? What does he expect then to be the speed with which asylum claims are processed? What does he regard as the then tolerable backlog? With what speed does he expect removals, where those are necessary, then to occur?
If the Home Secretary is willing to address the remaining practical questions relating to his measures, and if he is willing to state clearly what results his measures are designed to achieve, I believe that he will have the backing of the whole House in seeking to bring order out of his predecessor's chaos.
Mr. Skinner: Come on David, stroke him!
Mr. Blunkett: I will do my own stroking in my own time.
I warmly welcome the approach of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on behalf of the official Opposition. I do hope that, despite continuing disagreements about particular detail, this will herald a new beginning in this country of not using asylum as a political football and not enabling the National Front and the British National party to make mischief with it. We all seek, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman seeks, to find solutions that balance the needs of this country and those who seek asylum and those of the British people and the confidence and security that they demand.
I take the little rap across the knuckles about what may or may not have emerged. I heard the hon. Gentleman—albeit for 20 seconds—on the "Today" programme this morning, so he was quite willing to respond, and I read with interest his Daily Express article before he came to the House on Monday, so we are all a little guilty of wanting to ensure the widest possible debate.
Yes, legal advice will be available in the accommodation centres. Yes, we will seek to provide a coherent way in which the adjudication process can be organised around the centres, which will speed the operation, cut the enormous cost of travel and the dislocation that occurs when appeals are cancelled by the Immigration Appellate Authority, not simply by the lawyers who represent those appellants. We will link the reporting centres—often mobile reporting centres—across the country, so that we can track and know where people live and where they are. In fact, entitlement to the new cash benefit will be dependent on them adhering to those facilities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the shambles. The shambles was inherited by my predecessor in May 1997—the shambles of the Siemens contract, which did not work
1032
badly; it did not work at all. There was the failure to introduce computerised fingerprinting, which we dealt with at the end of October, and the failure to have a system that balanced nationality and immigration with asylum. I pay tribute again to the work done by my predecessor and by the then Minister of State with responsibility for immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who worked very hard, including on developing the concept of economic migration.
Let us examine the international position and France. We talked about that on Monday, and the hon. Gentleman raises the issue again today. I explain, once again, that tolerated illegal presence in France is undoubtedly a problem. I cannot deal with that problem bilaterally in the months ahead, but the development of Dublin II in the European Union must address and overcome that problem. If we can do that alongside international moves in relation to border controls and while tackling head on, through economic development, the causes of economic migration and persecution in the source region—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing just that with the Chancellor—and by overcoming unacceptable regimes, as we have done in Afghanistan, we will reduce the flow of those who seek a better or safer life in other parts of the globe.
Finally, we welcome economic migration, but it will need to be controlled, and we will be able to achieve that more readily through the new routes that have been explained today. The hon. Gentleman asked me about a judgment of my performance and, by implication, that of those who work for and on behalf of the Home Office. I will, of course, hold them to account, and I will be held to account by Parliament. I shall set out in the Bill the way in which we will have legislative dates for implementation. Of course, I will have to negotiate further resources with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and therefore targets, such as those in the spending review this summer, will be determined at that date. But I am painfully aware that, if I am still in the job in three years' time, it will be me and no one else who will have to answer for the competence, effectiveness and activity of the service.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will know that I have to protect the business of the House, so I appeal to hon. Members that, when they question the Home Secretary, they should ask one question, and one question alone.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Home Secretary about language restrictions on older people? Home Office records will show that Dr. Louis Pirouet of the Refugee Council, the late Dr. Max Perutz, who died yesterday, and I went to see Home Office officials on that very point. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the restrictions that might be imposed on those who are genuine refugees but who are too old to start learning a language?
Mr. Blunkett: I hope that I can put my hon. Friend's mind at rest by stressing that we are talking about people who are seeking naturalisation—citizenship. Although, as I stressed on Radio 5, it is important not to exclude spouses or older women from language tuition, which has

1033
been the case because such tuition is currently not free for spouses, I accept my hon. Friend's point and will reflect on it as it relates to naturalisation. There is no problem with those seeking refugee status and wishing to remain here.
Simon Hughes: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I, too, welcome the White Paper and intend to make a constructive, and I hope positive, response. An holistic attitude to the interlinked issues will give us a better chance of getting things right this time compared with the hash made by Governments in the past nine years, once under a Labour Administration and twice under the Conservatives. I look forward to working on the details so that we get them right in the consultation period before legislation is introduced.
On citizenship, we welcome a preparation process, a pledge and a ceremony of citizenship. Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is open to proper and full consultation so that we get those right and obtain the agreement of the maximum the number of people to those steps in the process?
On asylum seekers, what are the implications in the White Paper for the number of people who will be in accommodation or induction centres, and how does that compare with those who will remain in dispersal programmes? What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that we get the decisions right in the first place so that they are not turned down on technical, as opposed to substantive, reasons, as is often the case? Are we going to reduce the huge number of people in detention to about the European Union average? Will those in detention have a right to apply for bail? Presumably judicial review will remain even though the system has changed. Will significant extra resources be available and will a target on the backlog be set?
Finally, in relation to migrants and asylum seekers, the Home Secretary will know that we greatly welcome the existence of legitimate routes from outside the country. Does he have a timetable according to which those are likely to be in place and any idea of the numbers? Will everyone in that position be given advice and support so that they can consider properly whether they will be accepted as asylum seekers rather than as economic migrants before they make an application for one or the other?
Mr. Blunkett: In view of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, and not because I cannot remember the questions, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. On the hon. Gentleman's most salient questions, let me say this. Everyone who is interested in the development of citizenship and language must be fully consulted; bail will continue to be available; and no restrictions will exist other than those that I set out in the White Paper in relation to judicial review. At this stage, we are not setting a target figure for the gateway. We need to ensure that we build up from what will inevitably be a low base.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome the reconsideration of financial bonds for visitors, as will my constituents.
On the health care of people who enter the country, especially from those regions with poor immunisation records, I note that the accommodation centres will
1034
provide health care. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to deal with those who do not require public support and who will not, therefore, go through accommodation centres? What interim measures does he plan to introduce to encourage people to contact primary care authorities now for immunisation?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. All people who come from outside the country and claim asylum will have to appear at, and work through, the new induction centres. As we build those up rapidly during the course of the year, we will undertake health checks and carry out immunisation if appropriate.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The White Paper makes it clear that the Government continue to regard Oakington immigration reception centre in my constituency as a key element of the processing of asylum applications, yet the Home Secretary will have known since October that Oakington is to be the site of a new settlement of housing development and must therefore close by 2004. Why does the White Paper make no reference to what is intended to be a centre for fast-track applications for asylum? What is to happen to the Oakington centre? If the service is to be relocated elsewhere, why cannot that be done more quickly, to one of the accommodation centres that are to be established?
Mr. Blunkett: The programme of 3,000 places in accommodation centres—to answer a previous question—which must be trialled initially is separate from the matter to be judged in the Lords in the spring, which is the challenge to the operation of Oakington. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I have two years in which to relocate Oakington, whereas I have three months in which to win the case on the operation of the principle.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I welcome much of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said this afternoon. I shall respond to his invitation regarding the family visitor process. Will he say anything today about the review of the fees for appeals in respect of family visitor applications?
Mr. Blunkett: Those fees have been a cause of concern to many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend. I am aware that the review indicates that they cause not only administrative inconvenience, but considerable distress to those involved. I am therefore minded to abolish them.
Mr. David Cameron: I welcome what the Home Secretary has said today, especially about asylum seekers no longer being kept in prison and his announcement about Campsfield House. Will he say a little more about the accommodation centres and how they will link with induction centres and removal centres? What is to be secure and what is not?
Mr. Blunkett: Those seeking asylum will spend a short spell in induction centres. That will gradually reduce dispersals to bed and breakfast and other accommodation of that sort, which will alleviate pressure on local communities at those sites. Accommodation centres are the next stage—they must first be trialled, of course—of the full provision that I described in my statement. They will be open centres: people will be free to come and go,

1035
provided they are present in the evening and are registered and people know what is happening. Removal centres will bite only when people have been refused leave to remain and have gone through the appeals process. They will enable us to operate the removals process much more effectively. Expanding the number of places to 4,000 will enable us to manage the process sensibly. In the removal centres, security will be paramount.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Much that is in the White Paper will be welcome, especially the news that asylum seekers will no longer be held in prison and that the hated voucher scheme is on the way out. No reasonable person will object to the notion that citizenship brings with it responsibilities as well as rights. As regards the deportation of failed asylum seekers, especially when children are involved, has my right hon. Friend considered introducing a modest resettlement grant, so that we do not dump destitute families with children at airports on the other side of the world?
Mr. Blunkett: I am very sympathetic to ensuring that we get that right. One of the reasons why removal has, throughout the ages and for Governments of all persuasions in other countries, been so difficult is that often the family has been in the country for a considerable period. Working with the International Organisation for Migration and others to get the process right makes sense in terms of both voluntary resettlement and returns, and those removed through removal centres. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall examine this closely, and that the Department for International Development will be involved.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Home Secretary accept that a weakness of the White Paper is its failure to address the removal of failed asylum seekers? Even under his proposals, we are talking about fewer than one in three failed asylum seekers being returned. Why does he not go for 100 per cent. of failed asylum seekers being sent back to where they came from?
Mr. Blunkett: Why does the hon. Gentleman remind me of Alan B'stard's friend Piers? He did yesterday, and he does again today.
There is a really sensitive and important issue: how do we accelerate the removal of those who are already here and have gone through the system, as opposed to how we operate the new system, whereby people will be placed in removal centres and it will be possible to remove 100 per cent. of those who have gone through the new process? The sensitivities concern the fact that we do not wish to tear neighbourhoods, communities and different ethnic cultures apart in the process. Otherwise, we could send the police out en masse, collect people, stick them on planes and send them away; there has to be a balance. If I can get 100 per cent. of those who should not be here through the new system and out of the country, I will, but I would welcome a bit more sensitivity and help from people such as the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about providing a gateway for asylum seekers to make applications from other countries
1036
under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Does he agree, however, that people will still make applications in this country, having arrived here by other means, or because the circumstances in their country of origin have changed? Does he accept that under the United Nations convention on refugees—the foundation of international law on asylum—we cannot simply regard those people as illegitimate applicants and those who come through the gateway as legitimate applicants?
Mr. Blunkett: First, we will accept asylum claims from those who present themselves and prove that they have a legitimate case, whether or not they have come through the gateway. Indeed, under the convention, we have an obligation to do so, which we will fulfil.
We must consider putting a time limit on older cases—those before 2 October 2000—in which, having tried to get asylum, people then make a claim based on human rights. If we can get that right, we can try to make sense of a system that is otherwise disabled by people taking one route but then switching to another.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I particularly welcome many of the compassionate proposals that the Home Secretary outlined to the House. Will he give more details on the way in which he intends to stop the exploitation of children brought into the country for the sex trade, and tackle the disgrace of young British Asian women being forced into arranged marriages against their will?
Mr. Blunkett: So that there is no misunderstanding, let us be clear about the difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages, which are agreed. Forced marriages are utterly unacceptable; the communities that operate arranged marriages are clear about that, and I pay tribute to community leaders who have taken action to make the tradition more secure.
We must address the need to increase the penalties and take much more decisive action when children are checked as they come into the country—highlighted, of course, by the tragic Climbié case—not simply under immigration and asylum legislation, but under the sexual offences issues that I shall introduce in the next parliamentary Session as part of the reform of the legal and criminal justice system.
Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome above all the Home Secretary's determination to bring more efficiency to the administration of the system; without efficiency, there will not be fairness. He referred to marriages and the no-switching rule, where there is obvious conflict between efficiency and fairness. People who are in the country as students or visitors and get married here often do not return home to apply for permission to enter as a spouse because of long queues in their countries of origin; the delay in getting here may mean that they do not witness the birth of their child or that their family cannot be financed here. In his review of the process, will my right hon. Friend take all those factors into account to ensure that people in genuine marriages can look after their spouses in Britain?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes. I will examine in detail the issues raised. Perhaps I ought to have made it clear, although in

1037
a statement one must be concise, that we are referring to those who enter on visitor and other visas under six months, and who do so knowing that they intend to switch. It is unfair on those who are using the system legitimately; it slows down the system for them. That is why we need to examine the matter urgently.
Hywel Williams: May I say on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish national party that there is much in the White Paper for us to study? We in Plaid Cymru and the SNP will look with interest at the short statement of what it means to be British on page 34. That might be useful. I refer the Home Secretary to the answer that he gave me on Monday regarding language. What consideration has been given to the implications for the use of language as an occupational qualification in some circumstances?
Mr. Blunkett: I promise the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of being Welsh and not being British or, as I said on Monday, of the Welsh language not being included—or Gaelic, Mr. Speaker. I need to get this right. I shall simply duck the last part of the question, which is designed to embroil me with the Assembly as regards the necessity of the Welsh language in some jobs and some professions. I have enough on my plate today.
Mr. Iain Coleman: Given that previous ministerial statements indicated that the anticipated average time in an attendance centre could be up to six months, and given that a number of individuals and organisations, including the chief executive of the Children's Society, have expressed grave concern about children being taken out of or not being in mainstream education for such a long period, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the complex and diverse needs of the children of asylum seekers will be met, and give us some details of the likely arrangements for that?
Mr. Blunkett: I will happily write to my hon. Friend, and I will place the letter in the Library so that hon. Members can see the substantive answer. Clearly, on the top of one question, I cannot answer all that. I should make it clear that there is a big difference between what happens in the accommodation centres and the time spent in removal centres. Accommodation centres are an alternative to the haphazard dispersal of youngsters, often into unsatisfactory accommodation, and often not getting them into school quickly. The provision of education—tailored, I hope, to particular regional languages—will be a gain, not a detriment to the well-being of those children. In any case, the entire operation that I spelled out today—the seamless approach from induction through to integration or removal—is designed to speed up the process. God forbid that anyone should be in an accommodation centre for six months. The process needs to be speeded up. If we can get that right, my hon. Friend's fears will be overcome.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Home Secretary will have noted that much of his statement was warmly received on the Conservative Benches. Is he completely satisfied with the security arrangements at the various French ports of exit, and does he feel that it would be useful to persuade our French friends to have more British personnel involved?
Mr. Blunkett: I am glad to say that the French welcomed the additional immigration officers and security
1038
at Coquelles. As I spelled out on Monday, I cannot guarantee that security is 100 per cent., but over the past six months there have been enormous improvements at the rail freight terminal and at ports. The reduction from 808 people in July to 32 in December coming through clandestinely is an indication of the progress that has been made.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary say a bit more about the accommodation centres—where they will be situated, how much it will cost to run them and what element of compulsion there will be for the people inside them? Will his prediction that people will spend no more than six months in these centres be enshrined in regulation, or is there a danger that the centres will become long-term ghettos where asylum seekers are stuck while the system is incapable of dealing effectively and efficiently with their applications?
Mr. Blunkett: Asylum seekers will not be any more stuck—to use my hon. Friend's phraseology—than they are at the moment in terms of the accommodation that they have been assigned under the asylum support system. I cannot give a guarantee that a requirement will be built into law that nobody should be in the centres for more than six months. I can only endeavour to change completely the efficiency and administration of the system, so that no one, whether they are in an accommodation centre or in existing dispersal, finds themselves waiting for an inordinate and unacceptable time. I can assure him that the intention is to provide help and support. People will not be held or restricted in accommodation centres. They will not be imprisoned or confined, but they will be expected—as will the reporting centres—to ensure that we know where they are. If they are claiming support, they must be given an option in respect of whether to get support in an accommodation centre. We cannot compel people to take accommodation, food, board, lodging, education and health care, but we can offer them those things if support is what they seek.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I invite the Home Secretary to apply the same decent, democratic and compassionate values that he showed in his statement to the proposal to site one of the asylum and accommodation centres at a remote, rural location in my constituency—Throckmorton airfield? Does he think that it is right that the Government should assert Crown immunity and introduce urgent provisions to override the democratic planning process, which has already ruled out on environmental grounds any development on the land? Does he think that it is right to locate asylum seekers, as he intends to do, immediately between the county's only landfill site and the burial site of 130,000 foot and mouth-diseased carcases? What message does that decision risk sending about the Government's attitude to asylum seekers?
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's undoubted concern for the well-being of the asylum community. Of course, I shall bear it in mind, but let me make it clear that we have made no decision on the sites. We have initially identified eight, one of which is already deemed unsuitable. We have a competitive exercise that has to include the normal contracting, tendering and advertising process to see whether the voluntary and

1039
private sectors would like to propose other sites. From all those sites, we will initially select four for consultation. My noble Friend Lord Rooker contacted the hon. Members in whose constituencies these initial centres are proposed in order to ensure that no secrecy or underhand activity was involved. We will do the same when additional sites have been identified. We will then work through those that are unacceptable because of factors that make it unhealthy or undesirable for the centres to be placed there.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I think that I agreed with just about every word in it—an unusual situation for me.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in respect of Islam, it is clear that when parents are arranging a marriage for their children, the main prerequisite is compatibility? Will not that compatibility be much more easily achieved if parents arrange marriages within the UK community of Muslims who are originally from the Asian subcontinent, rather than by going to the subcontinent to bring back young husbands and wives? That would help with many of the aims that he is trying to achieve in his White Paper, as many of them are better achieved from within the Asian community. It would certainly help the many young women who, I am afraid, visit my office in need of help because of the breakdown of traditional arranged marriages that have gone very wrong.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her sensitivity and forthrightness in representing her constituents and in raising the issue of equality. I want to make it clear that we are not seeking to impose anything on the communities with regard to these issues. We are simply raising an issue that many people in communities in which arranged marriages are part of the culture wish to have addressed, and wish to have articulated in this, their and our Parliament.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Home Secretary will be aware that, between 1997 and 2001, in the light of two critical reports by successive chief inspectors of prisons, his Department was urged to close Campsfield House. Every year, however, the Department said no, and that Campsfield House was fit
1040
for the 20th and 21st centuries. Today, the Home Secretary has suddenly decided that it is not fit for the 21st century, which is welcome. Does he not think it unfit because it is too small to accommodate the large numbers of people he wishes to detain, including those who are not due for removal and, for the first time, families, who—according to the White Paper—are now liable for detention, even when they are not due for removal? Is it not time for a radical review of the Government's detention regime, to stop people who have been persecuted, and who are later granted asylum, being detained for months in unsuitable detention centres?
Mr. Blunkett: First, I am setting up accommodation centres. Only when someone has failed to establish their right to remain through the appeals process am I using secure removal centres. Secondly, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was so churlish. If I was closing Campsfield House only because it was not big enough, I would have waited to close it—and to announce the closure—until the accommodation and removal numbers were up to an acceptable level. I have not done that, because I believe—and the hon. Gentleman appears to agree—that Campsfield is unsuitable. I would have welcomed a little more warmth from him.
Shona McIsaac: As a site in my constituency is being considered for an accommodation centre, I have tried to reassure local residents that they will be consulted fully about the proposals, should South Killingholme be selected. Will my right hon. Friend reassure those residents that they will be involved in the consultation process? Will he similarly reassure the three parish councils and the unitary authority affected?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that people understand what is on offer, so that they do not badly misunderstand what is to take place. It is also important, when establishing such centres, that people genuinely feel that they have a contribution to make, not least because the centres will provide substantial opportunities for jobs for local people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to the business statement and I must advise Back Benchers once again that one question to the Leader of the House is sufficient.

Business of the House
1.22 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Land Registration Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Debate on the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Remaining stages of the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Debate on defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week following the constituency week will be:
MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 1 MARCH—Debate on the achievements of the national lottery on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall before Easter will be:
THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Debate on the report from the International Development Committee on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and the surrounding region.
THURSDAY 7 MARCH—Debate on increasing access to heritage attractions.
THURSDAY 14 MARCH—Debate on Government policy on health and safety at work.
THURSDAY 21 MARCH—Debate on the report from the Public Administration Committee on ministerial accountability and parliamentary questions.
The House will be aware that London Underground will make an announcement this afternoon on the value-for-money review of the public-private partnership plans for the tube. I am pleased to inform the House that, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will make a statement at the close of Third Reading of the Tax Credits Bill at 7 pm today.
Mr. Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. You have told the House more than once recently, Mr. Speaker. that you deprecate Ministers' habit of making announcements outside the House before making them here, especially, if I may say so, on something as important as a White Paper.
1042
However, this morning's edition of The Sun includes the headline:
"Sun Exclusive. Immigrants Must Pass English Test. Lessons in how to be British."
Indeed, the Home Secretary seemed to take pride in the fact that he appeared on Radio 4 this morning, telling us most of the contents of his White Paper. When will Ministers end their persistent practice of appearing on the media to make announcements before coming to the House to do so?
In connection with what the Leader of the House has just told us about the odd device of a statement at 7 o'clock this evening on the important matter of the London tube, word has reached me, though I can scarce believe it is true, that there will be a press briefing this afternoon, probably arranged by Jo Moore on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that there will be no such press briefing this afternoon on a matter that will be announced to the House by the Secretary of State this evening. If, for any reason, the Leader of the House cannot give us that assurance, I hope that he will be able to make his peace with you, Mr. Speaker. It appears that Ministers are persistently Clouting what you have made absolutely clear—statements must be made here before they are made anywhere else.
I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 821, on the conduct of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
[That this House is concerned by the exchange between the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and the Foreign Secretary (5th February, Official Report, columns 745–6) about Gibraltar, in which the Foreign Secretary told his honourable Friend that she had asked him a "disobliging question" and that "she should not judge the Government by her own standards"; believes that Back Bench honourable Members have the right to ask searching questions of Ministers without being subjected to insult or innuendo; and calls upon the Foreign Secretary to clarify his remarks forthwith or to withdraw them]
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on 5 February, just a couple of days ago, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) asked the Foreign Secretary to
"tell us what unpleasant circumstances and trick question he is preparing for the referendum?"
The Foreign Secretary, a very senior member of the Government, replied:
"My hon. Friend asks me a disobliging question. She should not judge the Government by her own standards."—[Official Report, 5 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 745–46.]
What protection do you believe you can give Labour Back Benchers against their Secretaries of State? It seems that relations in the Labour party have reached such a state that the Opposition must table early-day motions to try to protect Labour Members from Ministers. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us some idea of when he will give hon. Members his assurances on what he proposes to do to protect his own colleagues.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that the House has been joining in this week's celebrations of Her Majesty's jubilee. She is a septuagenarian who has been in office for 50 years, but the House may not know that, next

1043
Monday, we will have our own septuagenarian, who will have been in office for 30 years. I refer, of course, to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
I hope that the Leader of the House will approach the appropriate authorities, perhaps through you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether we can arrange a street party for the hon. Gentleman to celebrate the fact that he has shown sufficient flexibility not to retire at 65. I hope that the House will join me in wishing him a happy joint jubilee with Her Majesty.
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating my hon. Friend. I am available to attend any street party that he thinks may be appropriate. Whether my hon. Friend will invite Her Majesty, I will leave to him—I am not entirely sure that she will be on the guest list.
The statement about English being required for British citizenship was made last October, not in The Sun this morning. I listened with care to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the "Today" programme and again this afternoon. There is a breadth of policy statements in the White Paper that was totally untouched in the "Today" interview.
The shadow Home Secretary said at the Dispatch Box that he would only gently rebuke my right hon. Friend for appearing on the "Today" programme.
Mr. Forth: That is not what I said.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand that there is a gulf between the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Home Secretary both in personality and in policy, but it may just be that the latter was only gentle in his criticism because he, too, appeared on the "Today" programme this morning, rather bizarrely responding to a statement that he had not even heard.
On what the right hon. Gentleman said about the device of having a statement at 7 o'clock, I should have thought that the House would welcome the opportunity to hear a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what is not his announcement but an announcement by London Underground. I would deprecate it if we were to break into a very important debate on the Tax Credits Bill, to which many amendments have been tabled, including by Opposition Members. As Leader of the House, I wanted to protect the time for scrutiny of that Bill. We have arranged for a full statement. The right hon. Gentleman keeps complaining that we do not sit long enough. He has today the opportunity to sit for an extra hour and hear that statement. I hope that he will be here for it.
On the early-day motion, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his protection, but I know her well enough to know that she can stand up for herself. This Chamber is a place for robust exchanges—we are all grown-ups—and, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman has in his time been every bit as robust as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members who came into the Chamber after the statement had started are
1044
seeking to catch my eye. They will not be called. In order to be called, hon. Members must come into the Chamber in time for the statement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am able to be here, almost on the verge of my 70th birthday, because of the dedication of the nurses and doctors in the hospital who gave me a second mortgage on life a few years ago? While I am here, let me also ask him about those other 70-year-old miners and widows in the mining communities. Can we have a statement to ensure that they, too, can celebrate the years ahead of them with their proper miners' compensation? Will he hurry and speed that along and call on Industry Ministers to deal with the matter? Then, most people in Bolsover will not be too happy about me, but will be happy about the Labour Government having paid out that £5 billion in miners' compensation.
Michael Fabricant: He is a national treasure.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we have an opportunity to debate the national heritage in March, and he will no doubt wish to celebrate my hon. Friend's contribution to it.
I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend. It is entirely characteristic of him that he should share his own celebrations with the staff of the NHS. In his three decades in the House, he has been a redoubtable champion of an NHS that is free at the point of use and provided on the basis of need, not ability to pay. I hope that we will share many more decades together, defending that important principle.
I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks about miners to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and suggest that, in the spirit of celebration of his contribution, she should give a speedy response.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I associate myself with the good wishes expressed to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Many of us would agree with him that the current fad for denigrating NHS staff does no credit to politics, from whatever source it comes.
Several issues are raised by the statement on the public-private partnership for the tube. The excuse given by the Leader of the House for having it at 7 o'clock-when of course it will be more difficult for hon. Members and the media to take the issue seriously—is that the only opportunity for ministerial statements is at 12.30. Well, we are already at 1.30, and the likelihood is that this session will continue for some time longer, so it would be perfectly possible to have a statement at 2, if not 2.15 or 2.30.
Given that the Prime Minister effectively made a statement on this subject to the BBC yesterday by saying that the plan was ready to go, and that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions also made a statement yesterday, can the Leader of the House tell us: when is a statement not a statement? If people are prepared to make statements to the media, why are they not prepared to make statements to the House? Will we have a firm assurance from the Secretary of State this evening that the plan has been approved by the Health

1045
and Safety Executive? If it has not, why is a statement being made at all? Surely safety questions must be paramount.
On another subject, it is reported today that there is a six-week wait for the single vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that this is not an attempt to ration the single vaccines—and an absolute assurance that parents will be encouraged to have their children vaccinated on the basis of the credibility of the joint MMR vaccine, not by any restriction on the single vaccines? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that since the Phillips report on BSE there has been a real credibility gap concerning the advice available to the Government on matters of scientific and medical importance?
Mr. Cook: I have not offered any excuse to the House for not breaking into the debate on the Tax Credits Bill; that is a real reason. The hon. Gentleman and I have repeatedly pressed the importance of ensuring that the House has adequate opportunity for scrutiny—
Mr. Forth: Oh!
Mr. Cook: It is true: a number of amendments have been tabled to the Bill that will be before the House this afternoon, and there are several different groups to discuss. I am keen to ensure that we have adequate time to consider them. As for the idea that a statement should be made now, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the statement will be about the announcement by London Underground—an announcement that has not yet been made. With the best will in the world, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot make a statement on an announcement that has yet to be made.
As for the vaccines, I say firmly to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will accept this—that our case for the MMR vaccine as the best way to protect both public health and the individual rests on the credibility of that vaccine. May I "gently"—as the shadow Home Secretary said—remind him that the assurances have come not only from Ministers and the Government machine; just about every independent scientist and medical body that has considered the question has echoed our faith in that credibility. I hope that we can now reach a responsible phase in which people recognise that the best way of protecting public health and the safety of individual children is to encourage people to use the MMR vaccine, which will ensure that we protect the individual and the population at large.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), because I too want to raise the question of MMR with my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he has seen early-day motion 815, which was tabled by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).
[That this house notes with concern the recent outbreaks of measles in London and the north east; further notes the often devastating consequences of measles, mumps and rubella for young children and their parents; condemns the irresponsible conduct of some sections of the press and media which have undermined public confidence in mmr either by sensationalising the doubts about its safety of a small minority of doctors or by
1046
cynically manufacturing a political controversy without regard for the consequences for public health; and urges parents to consider the almost unanimous medical advice from this country and the 90 others where mmr is routinely in use that the risk associated with the triple vaccination is vastly outweighed by the danger to their children and those of others of not having it.]
My right hon. Friend will also have heard the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, which mirrors his own. May we have a debate in Government time on the subject, so that we can hold the Opposition to account for their irresponsibility and scaremongering, particularly the Conservative spokesman on health, who is himself a doctor? We could also point out to the Opposition how disastrous it will be if parents stop their children having that excellent, and proven, vaccination.
Mr. Cook: I fully echo what my hon. Friend says; she speaks from a lifetime's work in the NHS. It is very important for the nation as a whole that we encourage the maximum number of families to ensure that their children are vaccinated. I fear that we may be witnessing the first hint of the problem that will arise if the uptake declines, and I deeply regret the fact that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who speaks for the Conservative party on health and is himself medically qualified, has chosen to put politics before science in this matter.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May we have an early debate on the new White Paper on immigration? We have a crisis in Kent, with the largest concentration of vulnerable unaccompanied minors seeking asylum. That problem is compounded by the fact that the Government's monstrous standard spending assessment system values a child in London at three times the rate of a child in Kent. The combination of local deprivation and large numbers of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum—together with the many children in care who are sent to us by London authorities—is creating a crisis that is getting progressively worse.
Mr. Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the House exploring the matter further, and we will have many opportunities to do so when we discuss the Bill that will follow in the White Paper's wake. I am sure that he and many other hon. Members will wish to make their constituency points then.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We have not set a good standard for brevity so far. I am not going to run this statement for an excessive time, so I ask that questions be as brief as possible.
Harry Cohen: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my early-day motion 812?
[That this House notes that there have been numerous and highly credible allegations made of large commission payments made to individuals in Saudi Arabia as part of the Al-Yamamah arms sales to that country; is concerned that the 1992 National Audit Office report into the Al-Yamamah arms sales has been kept secret; further notes that other allegations have been made that Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network have received substantial funds from individuals in Saudi Arabia;

1047
desires reassurances that the commission payments have not ended up in the hands of international terrorists; calls for publication of the 1992 National Audit Office Report; and believes that transparency in arrangements for arms sales creates a safer and more stable world.]
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that next Thursday's defence debate will provide the Government with a good opportunity to arrange publication of the National Audit Office report on the Al-Yamamah contracts, which has been kept secret since 1992. The report almost certainly refers to the payment of kickbacks and commissions as part of that arms deal, some of which may have been used to fund Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a powerful case for publication of that report?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes some rather large claims for a report that neither he nor I have seen. I am in no way able to authenticate what might be in it, but I suggest that we do not speculate too widely. As he says, the report has not been published since it was drawn up in 1992, so there is a long tradition of its not being published that he must displace. However, I am sure that he will take part in the debate and he can press his case then.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) by suggesting strongly to the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State for Health should make a statement on the current vaccination problems, which clearly constitute a crisis. That would allow many of us to express our belief that the national health service should offer parents an informed choice.
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend's policy is well known, has been stated often in the House and was restated by the Prime Minister only this week. It is that the Government stand firmly behind the MMR as the best way to provide protection for children and protection of the public health. Given that we are providing the MMR vaccine as a matter of policy, and that we believe it to be the best vaccine for the nation and the public, it would be very strange not to continue to say that that is the vaccine on which we should rely.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a way to involve in discussions in the House the four elected Sinn Fein Members? A debate on paramilitary intimidation will take place in Westminster Hall on 14 February, which will include discussion of the forced exiling of many people from Northern Ireland by paramilitary groups. Although the Sinn Fein Members can attend and listen to that debate, they cannot participate, but they could book a Committee Room in which discussion could continue afterwards. That would enable some of us to ask those Members when they will call the dogs off and allow those placed in exile to return.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has a long record of being robust with Sinn Fein and on the record of the IRA in Northern Ireland, and I congratulate him on the vigour with which he has pursued such matters. One reason why we decided to accept the four elected representatives of
1048
Sinn Fein on to the precincts was so that they could engage in dialogue, and my hon. Friend points out a useful way in which they could do so, if they so wish.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware of reports suggesting that payments of up to £150,000 a piece are being urged for Scottish Labour Members of Parliament whose seats might disappear through Boundary Commission adjustments? Does he think it right that Members who lose their seats in that way should be paid up to three times as much as those who lose their seats through retirement or the hazards of the electoral process? If so, why should such payments be made only to Labour Members in Scotland, and not to Members of Parliament throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Cook: I have never heard of such figures—
Mr. Forth: Answer.
Mr. Cook: I shall indeed do so. In the case of my local patch, the Boundary Commission has shown great wisdom, judgment and sense, and I welcome the result. However, in view of the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes, I may rethink whether I wish to contest my seat.
David Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend inform me of the truth of some of the reports in the news today about the last deep mine in Scotland, the Longannet complex, which is under threat? Will he ask the Minister for Industry and Energy to make a statement to the House?
Mr. Cook: I had not heard that report before I came to the Chamber. If it is true, I fully understand the enormous concern that it will cause to the many people who work in that pit and to the community surrounding one of the last remaining deep mines in operation. I shall certainly ensure that we convey my hon. Friend's question to my colleague and that an answer is forthcoming today.
Michael Fabricant: May we have an urgent debate on the future of the BBC, in particular on its political coverage? Is the Leader of the House aware that many people in the House and, indeed, in the BBC are concerned that political coverage will now be sidelined from mainstream radio and television channels? Does he agree that the licence payer deserves to see the way in which the democratic process works? That will not happen if coverage of this place is consigned to minority digital channels.
Mr. Cook: I fully endorse the principle behind the hon. Gentleman's question and the House will be aware that I have repeatedly expressed my concern about the decline in the coverage of Parliament in the written and the broadcast media. He touches on an unusual point of consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties, in that our joint chairs have both written to the BBC chair to point out that the BBC has a public service obligation. It receives funding for that obligation and I hope that it will bear in mind that that obligation requires the BBC to ensure that it adequately and properly covers Parliament.
Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of adequate scrutiny of

1049
legislation. Does he think that any lessons can be learned for the future programming of Bills from the lack of scrutiny given to many amendments to the Education Bill? Will he consider allocating an adequate, but not excessive, amount of time for the consideration of every subject area to which substantive amendments have been tabled?
Mr. Cook: Of course we want to ensure that there is adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. For that reason, several times during the proceedings of the Education Bill in Standing Committee we approached the Opposition to offer additional sittings. Indeed, we tabled an additional meeting on 22 January, which turned out not to be necessary as there were no amendments to be debated at that sitting. As for Report, the original programme resolution provided for one day, but we provided for two. When there was difficulty on the first day, we provided an additional two hours on the second day. At every stage, we have responded to requests for additional time. I regret the fact that some of the important provisions in the Bill were not adequately debated, but that was entirely because the Opposition chose to conduct themselves in a way that did not make it possible.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 767 on the Omagh victims' legal action group?
[That this House remembers with deep sadness the Omagh bombing of 15th August 1998 in which 31 people—including seven children and two unborn babies—were murdered by the Real IRA; commends the courage of the families of the victims of this bombing in launching an unprecedented civil legal case against five named individuals, suspected of planting the bomb, and the Real IRA; congratulates the families on their persistence in attempting to seek justice; and urges the public to show their support for the families' legal action in whatever way they can.]
Almost 100 hon. Members have signed up to support that motion and to urge the public to support the families' legal action. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to raise at Cabinet level the justice of the Government providing matching funding to support the money raised privately for that legal action against those perceived to have been responsible for the murder of 29 people in Omagh three years ago. That would be a small sum compared to the £100 million perceived to have been spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry into the loss of 14 lives 30 years ago.
Mr. Cook: I understand the gravity of the issue and the extent to which it troubles the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others throughout Northern Ireland. I will certainly reflect on his request. I assure him that the proper place to deal with the pursuit of justice and legal action is through the prosecution service, which is adequately resourced to meet anything that may be available to the defence.
Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Post Office is still publicly owned? In view of the irresponsible attitude of the regulator, which is jeopardising the universal service obligation, will he ask the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office to make a full statement to the House?
Mr. Cook: I have drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the many
1050
remarks that were made about that matter following the business statement last Thursday. I stress that Postcomm's first statutory obligation is to maintain the Post Office's universal service obligation. We would require any proposal that the regulator persisted with to be consistent with that obligation.
Mr. Eric Pickles: As far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is unable to make a statement to the House at the normal time because London Underground will not have reached its decision by then. However, it will have done so at 3.30—that is why the Secretary of State is holding a press conference with two other Ministers. In the interests of brevity, may I suggest a compromise? If the Secretary of State came here to make a statement, the press could appear in the Press Gallery and listen. I think that this is the single most important piece of public finance anywhere in the world, so it is very frustrating for London Members to wait a further four hours before having an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State a number of pertinent questions. If he fears that we will run out of questions, there is no possibility of that.
Mr. Cook: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the Order Paper. He will see that a large number of amendments have been tabled to the Tax Credits Bill, all bar one of which are in the name of Opposition Members. Those Members want those amendments to be debated. I have therefore ensured that the Secretary of State will make a full statement to the House and will not interfere with the debate on the amendments. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General is on the Front Bench, ready to take part in that debate. I hope that we will be able to start it soon.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since it was my right hon. Friend, to his credit, who persuaded Madeleine Albright to allow a trial in a third country, he knows a great deal about Lockerbie. Can we have a statement next week about where the responsibilities of the House of Commons end and those of the Scottish Parliament begin? In particular, is it not high time that we had a statement on Strathclyde police's extraordinary actions, which have gone unchallenged, in providing a witness in a forthcoming murder trial, namely Tony Gauci, with salmon fishing on the River Spey? That aspect of the proceedings is not sub judice. Should there not be an explanation?
Mr. Cook: I am always nervous when my hon. Friend gives me credit, but in response to his last point may I say gently to him that that matter is sub judice because it touches directly on an appeal proceeding that is currently under way. It would be wholly inappropriate and improper of me to comment on it. In any case I am not in a position to enlighten him on that specific point.
Hywel Williams: Given that yesterday and the day before we were allowed a total of six minutes to debate clauses relating to Wales in the Education Bill, and that more clauses related to Wales than to England, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he would

1051
allow the Welsh Grand Committee to examine such measures on Second Reading, as the Scottish Grand Committee did?
Mr. Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says but I remind him of the point that I have just made. We doubled the amount of time that was available for the Report stage and having found that there was a difficulty on the first day, we extended consideration on the second day. The House itself has some responsibility in this matter. If there is adequate time available for examination and scrutiny of a Bill, we must ensure that we reasonably pace it so that all clauses are debated and people such as the hon. Gentleman can make their voices heard.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: On Tuesday the Department of Trade and Industry published its clean coal technology review. Today the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has published its report on security of energy supply, and we are all waiting eagerly for the Government's performance and innovation unit energy review. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will arrange for a full day's debate on those matters? The issue is the total energy supply, perhaps for the next three decades. I would like a debate so that our views can be heard, as well those of the policy wonks that put these reports together.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I recognise the description of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy as a policy wonk. I suspect that he would also take issue with it but we all look forward with interest to the forthcoming PIU energy review. I am sure that the House will wish to ensure that it is fully explored. I have a difficult task which becomes more difficult every Thursday with the number of additional claims—
Mr. Forth: Good.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman does not help me, but nor is it his job to help me in this. Every Thursday there is an increase in the list of subjects for which we would wish to have a day's debate. I cannot satisfy everybody, but I am very conscious of my hon. Friend's claim.
Mr. Peter Duncan: When the Leader of the House contemplates his political future can I appraise him of the full offer that is being made to Labour Members? He was slow to back the Conservative proposals for PFI, so may I seek his assurance that he will firmly reject Scottish Labour's PPP—peerages on offer, pensions on offer and pay-offs on offer? Is it not the case that every Member of Parliament here today either voted for the Scotland Act 1998 and accepted that there would be fewer Members here thereafter, or has arrived since?
Mr. Cook: Of course I voted for the Scotland Act and of course I fully recognised what we were voting for, namely a reduction in the representation of Scotland at Westminster. We have carried through that commitment and we intend to honour it. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is the sole Conservative Member from Scotland, that
1052
I am delighted that we are able to maintain that token relic from Scotland, just in case we in Scotland forget the nature of the Tory party.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the handling of the dispute with the Public and Commercial Services Union over the introduction of Jobcentre Plus and unscreened areas in offices? It would appear that this has ground to a halt with letters, particularly a very unhelpful letter from Leigh Lewis, being fired at the union, demanding that it replies. Letters are going backwards and forwards like bullets when we should, as a Government who believe in negotiating with trade unions, be negotiating a settlement and not getting into this stalemate. Surely we should debate the matter in the House to help the Secretary of State who appears to be supporting this gunfire diplomacy rather than negotiation.
Mr. Cook: I understand the strength of feeling on this and my hon. Friend no doubt speaks from having consulted in his local area. We have now had 60 hours of negotiation with the unions on this particular question. My hon. Friend should also reflect that only one in four of the membership of the union voted for strike action. I strongly support the principle of having unscreened offices for the public. I am pleased to report that in offices where unscreened facilities have been provided there has been a reduction, not an increase, in the abuse or intimidation of staff. Of course we look forward to ways in which we can increase the safety of those working in unscreened offices, but in the 21st century that is the type of service that the public are entitled to expect.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Leader of the House will be aware of the belief of many Members of all parties represented in the House that the finding of negligence made against the two pilots of the Chinook aircraft which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre is unjustified and should not stand. He will also be aware of the publication this week of the House of Lords Select Committee report under the chairmanship of Lord Jauncey, who legitimately has the reputation of being one of Scotland's most eminent judges and of robust intellectual rigour. It is clear from the publication of the report that the Committee charged with the responsibility of examining these matters concluded that the original verdict was unjustified. An error of judgment having occurred and an injustice having arisen as a result, when may we have a debate to discuss these matters in the House?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the report produced by the House of Lords Select Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to agree that these are complex matters touching on difficult questions of interpretation and issues. The Minister of State for Defence has received the report and given an undertaking that he will study and respond to it. Over the years respective Governments have said that before revisiting the conclusion they would want new evidence. At present it is not clear that the House of Lords Select Committee has come up with new evidence.
John Cryer: Could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on car manufacturing? Later this

1053
month the last car will roll off the assembly line at Ford, Dagenham and for the first time in decades no cars will be made there. Many of the thousands of people who work there, 600 of whom are my constituents, feel that that is a bitter and deep betrayal, particularly after all Ford's past promises of a golden future.
Mr. Cook: I understand the enormous significance of the ending of car production as regards both employment and the culture and history of my hon. Friend's region, although I understand that Dagenham will continue to be a centre of excellence for diesel engine production. I shall take note of what my hon. Friend says about a debate. I am conscious of the fact that there have been several requests for debates on the manufacturing industry.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Why did not the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions ask London Underground to delay its announcement until 7 o'clock so that it would coincide with his statement to the House?
Why does the Leader of the House describe the week after next as a constituency week, when it has previously been described as a half-term?
Mr. Cook: I described it is a constituency week because that is where many of my colleagues intend to spend the week.
On the question of London Underground, I have many responsibilities for which I am happy to answer to the House, but the timetabling of board meetings of London Underground goes beyond my writ.

Points of Order
2 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Leader of the House were to ask you for the opportunity, would you allow him to correct an impression that he gave—I am sure, inadvertently—a short time ago? I thought that he suggested that the Opposition were responsible for delaying business yesterday, yet during about six hours of debate, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills alone spoke for 43 minutes and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke for 35 minutes. Government Members spoke for a total of three and a half hours, while Opposition Members spoke for only two and a half hours. I say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not want either the House or you to be under any misapprehension—nor would I want anyone to accuse the Leader of the House of giving the wrong impression: during yesterday's business, in which, regrettably, we made so little progress on the Education Bill, Government speakers took up much more time in total than Opposition speakers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that it suffices that that point is on the record. I had the pleasure of listening to most of those speeches, so I am well aware of the balance.
Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should be pointed out that the majority of Labour Members who spoke from the Back Benches in support of the new clauses could hardly be described as Government members.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be safer for the Chair to let that rest.

Orders of the Day
  Tax Credits Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Tax Credits Bill
    New Clause 1

      RECIPIENTS OF CHILDREN'S TAX CREDIT PRIOR TO APRIL 2003
      'Persons in receipt of children's tax credit immediately prior to April 2003 shall continue to receive tax credit of the same amount after that date in any case where their award of child tax credit under this Act would be of a lesser amount, for as long as they are responsible for one or more children or qualifying young persons.'.—[Mr. Webb.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2.2 pm
      Mr. Steve Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 4—Effect of working tax credit on housing or council tax benefits—
      'No award of working tax credit under this Act shall be taken into account in the determination of any housing or council tax benefit to which a person may be entitled under any other enactment.'.
      New clause 7—Access to social fund—
      ?Before the coming into effect of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament regulations providing for the conditions and qualifications for access to the social fund of persons ceasing to qualify for income support or income based job seekers allowance upon the coming into effect of this Act.'.
      New Clause 8—Access to passported benefits—
      ?Before the coming into effect of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament regulations providing for the conditions and qualifications for access to passported benefits provided by the Secretary of State, devolved administrations and local authorities which prior to the coming into effect of this Act had been afforded by qualifying for working families tax credit, income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance.'.
      Amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 12 at end insert—
      ?(subject to the exception provided in section (Recipients of children's tax credit prior to April 2003))'.
      Amendment No. 5, in clause 60, page 32, line 25, at end insert—
      ?(except for regulations made under section (Access to social fund) or section (Access to passported benefits).'.
      Mr. Webb: It is my pleasure to speak to new clause 1. We also support new clause 4. I shall not comment on new clauses 7 and 8-they will be discussed by the Conservative Members who tabled them—other than to note that they raise important issues and we are sympathetic to their intention. We look forward to hearing more about them in due course.
      During our deliberations in the Standing Committee, a certain amount of ping-pong took place between the two sides. We wanted to give the Paymaster General the opportunity to set out her thinking on the rates and structure of the tax credits, but she declined to do so. Lest the hon. Lady be under any misapprehension, new clause 1 is different altogether. It does not relate to new
      1056
      claimants of the tax credit who start to become entitled—for example, due to the birth of a child—after April 2003; it relates to the rules that will govern the existing recipients of that tax credit.
      The new clause would mean that people receiving tax credits before April 2003 were not cash losers due to the transition. They would be able to continue with the same cash receipt of tax credit for as long as they still had a dependent child, or a qualifying young person.
      Obviously, the Chancellor will have to make decisions about the rates and thresholds of the tax credit in his Budget statement. We are not trying to pre-empt that. The acceptance of the new clause would not prejudge any of those decisions. It is really a statement of the principle that people who currently receive the tax credit should not be cash losers—whatever the Chancellor's decision as to the rates and thresholds.
      I shall give the House an example, as otherwise we might assume that—in a rare lapse—the Liberal Democrats were defending the rich while the Conservatives were talking about the social fund. The families that I am talking about are not necessarily filthy rich.
      I take the example, which I believe to be a good one, of a couple, both of whom work full-time—one on the typical salary for a nurse, one on the typical salary for a teacher. At present they receive the full child tax credit of £520. It seems almost inconceivable that, assessed on their joint income, they would receive anything other than zero. If a family of that sort received child tax credit, so would Back-Bench Members of Parliament. If, having decided to introduce a taper that withdraws child tax credit from higher earners, we include Back-Bench Members of Parliament among those who receive it, there is not much point in having a taper. Therefore, without going into details on the exact rates and thresholds that the Chancellor will choose, there is bound to be a doubt in the minds of families such as the nurse married to the teacher that they may be about to lose some, or all, of the £520 a year that they currently receive.
      More than one or two families are in that position. If the thresholds remain the same, 900,000 families could lose all of their tax credit, and another 500,000 could lose some of it. The purpose of the new clause is to tell them, "You may be reassured. Although you might not get an increase, we offer you our assurance as a House today that, whatever rates and thresholds the Chancellor introduces, you will not be cash losers."
      One might ask, why should not those families be cash losers? If a new system is introduced that is less generous to people in those circumstances, why should they not lose? We must remember that the children's tax credit was the successor to the married couples tax allowance, so we had a year when that allowance was abolished and nothing took its place, and we shall have had at least two years of the children's tax credit, now payable at £520 a year. It is reasonable to suppose that families have got used to budgeting on the basis of that income, and £520 is quite a serious sum of money. All that we are asking the House to agree is that such families may continue to receive that amount at that cash level. It would not be inflation-proofed, but they would be protected from a windfall loss of up to £520.

      1057
      Unless the Chancellor wants to create 1.4 million losers, he will have to spend some money on that issue anyway—perhaps by raising the threshold or changing the taper. We are not prejudging that decision, but we are proposing a relatively cheap solution, as is our wont, because the only group that we are protecting consists of existing recipients, who gradually fade out of the system. An existing recipient with a 16-year-old child and nothing else gets the money for one year, and that is it.
      If we were arguing that the Government should be raising the threshold so that new recipients in the same circumstances received the full tax credit, that increased cost would roll on indefinitely in the system. Our proposal is a transitional measure, not one for new claimants, because arguably a new family—the nurse married to the teacher who then has he first baby—has never budgeted on the basis of that sum of money and has never got used to having it, so that family's not having it through a new system is defensible. However, taking the money away from people who have got used to having it is far less defensible. Ours is a very modest proposal, to protect existing recipients and to make a statement of principle that there should be no cash losers, without prejudice to any decision that the Chancellor might take about raising thresholds.
      I shall briefly address new clause 4. Here there are interesting parallels between the Tax Credits Bill and the State Pension Credit Bill. In the case of the latter Bill, which is passing through another place, the Government have decided that any gains that are given to people through the credit should not be taken from them by means of tapers on housing benefit and council tax benefit, but the Government have not offered us those assurances in the case of tax credits—quite the contrary.
      There is some suggestion that a person who gets tax credits through the Tax Credits Bill will then potentially have some or most of them taken away as a result of the tapers on housing benefit and council tax benefit. Several London Members, who served on the Committee with us, expressed concern that because, in view of high rents, people can be on housing benefit while having relatively high incomes, those people could lose 65p—perhaps 85p—in the pound of the money that the Government want to give them.
      If the purpose of the Bill is to reward work, to encourage people to work and to teach that work pays, it is dishonest to give them money through the pay packet so that they get a high take-home pay figure and then allow the local authority to come along and take 85 per cent. of it from them. That seems counter-productive in terms of the Government's objectives. We therefore consider that new clause 4 is helpful to the Government—just as we have been in tabling many of our amendments—by enabling those whom they intend to benefit from the tax credits to keep the money, instead of having to give it to someone else.
      Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the point that he is discussing merely replicates the very worst aspects of the previous system and that that is a disincentive to returning to work, not only in London but in constituencies such as mine
      1058
      where many people claim the working families tax credit, are paid low wages and are in part-time or short-time work?
      Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Although high rents and council taxes in London are important, the issue is more about the interaction between high housing costs, high local taxes and low wages. Where all those factors combine, the problem will be particularly acute.
      The principle of what we want to achieve under new clause 4 is relatively straightforward. We are sure that the Government want to encourage people to take the low-paid jobs that are available, but if the money that the Government give them is taken away from them partly or wholly because of another benefit system, that goes against what the Government want to achieve. We seek to protect existing claimants and to help the Government achieve their goals of encouraging low-paid work, and we believe that new clauses 1 and 4 would help to achieve those objectives.
      Mr. Howard Flight: This group of new clauses and amendments essentially covers territory that there was insufficient time to cover in Committee. Yet again, that is evidence of the unsatisfactory nature of Bill programming.
      Amendment No. 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, raises an important point of principle and, as has been stated, it grandfathers claimants' benefits under the existing children's tax credit. It was the consistent policy of Conservative Governments in changing social welfare, in essence, to grandfather existing claimants and to ensure that people were not disadvantaged by legislative changes. Therefore, amendment No. 1 is, in part, a probing amendment—it is important for the House to know what the Government intend to do. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, the intention is not to discover what the rates will be across the board, but to address a point of principle, so I look forward to hearing what the Paymaster General has to say.
      New clauses 7 and 8, with amendment No. 5, broadly address overlapping territory. Under new clause 4, the Liberal Democrats would apply a disregard principle, designed to address problems that arise in areas where housing is expensive, such as London. Under new clauses 7 and 8, we raise a much wider issue. The Bill does not explicitly state how passporting to the social fund and the various other crucial benefits—housing benefits, school meal benefits and council tax benefits—will be dealt with as a result of ending income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance, which provided crucial passports to qualify for those benefits.
      The Bill therefore leaves major uncertainties about the arrangements for people who are presently passported by the existing qualifications under the working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit, income support and jobseeker's allowance. The Bill will float some families off income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance, and they will lose access to the social fund unless specific provisions are made.
      We want the Government to set out what their proposals are, as they should have done in the first place in the Bill. Perhaps those proposals will be satisfactory, but, unless that issue is properly addressed, the House

      1059
      should divide on the new clause because the most needy in society will face a major flaw if the issue is not addressed.
      The Paymaster General(Dawn Primarolo): Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has already declared that he intends to vote for the new clause before he has even heard what I have to say—I shall endeavour to be my normal persuasive self—several important issues are raised in this group of new clauses and amendments, and I should like briefly to deal with each principle. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has moved a new clause that deals with one set of changes, but the hon. Gentlemen have spoken about something unconnected to the new clauses and amendments that they have tabled. That causes some difficulty, but let me give an explanation.
      This group of new clauses and amendments deals with the relationship between the new tax credits and the existing forms of support. They cover three main issues—the children's tax credit, the interaction with housing and council tax benefits, and the passporting issue. I want to deal with each issue in turn because they are very important, as the hon. Gentlemen have said.
      2.15 pm
      In speaking to new clause 1 and amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Northavon returns to a point that we considered in Committee, even though he tries to explain that he is not doing so. I disappointed him in Committee, and I am afraid I shall do so again now. In dealing with what he claimed was a principle, he suggested some solutions. He said that the Chancellor could let thresholds remain the same, or he could change the threshold to address the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. As I have repeatedly said, the rates and tapers will be announced in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      New clause 1 refers to the children's tax credit and to people who are currently entitled to it. Under that new clause, the hon. Gentleman continues to try to extract a commitment from the Government about how a particular group of people may be affected. He then tries to extrapolate from that the type of decisions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will want to announce in his Budget statement.
      The children's tax credit was one of a series of measures that we introduced in the previous Parliament to improve support for families with children. The measures that we introduced in our first term in office were constrained, as was the working families tax credit, by the system that then existed. The children's tax credit works in the framework imposed by independent taxation. It is therefore based on individual claimants and their individual incomes. That territory is fairly well understood in the House. The children's tax credit had to work in that way because of the income tax system.
      One of the consequences of that has been that couples with the same aggregate income may receive different amounts of the children's tax credit, depending on how the income is distributed between them. Hon. Members and organisations have lobbied us extensively to tell us
      1060
      that that simply was not fair and that we needed to address it. That issue has been addressed in the child tax credit, and the hon. Gentleman would like me to tell him exactly how the rates and tapers will affect people as they transfer, but I am not about to do so. I have not seen any serious suggestion that the Government are at fault in trying to resolve that difficulty.
      The formal announcements on the rates and tapers and on when the new tax credits will be introduced will be made in the Budget statement. I confirm yet again that that will happen in the Chancellor's Budget statement on 17 April and that we are planning a start in April 2003.
      When setting the rates and thresholds, due consideration will be given to the relevant factors. My right hon. Friend will take those into account. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, the outline is in the Bill, but asking for specific undertakings on different sections of the population that will receive the tax credits is another attempt to debate rates and tapers. I know that he is keen to have that debate; so am I, and I look forward to engaging in it when the Chancellor makes his announcement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's cold is not so bad that it restricts him from participating then.
      Mr. Webb: New clause 1 is devised to allow us to request an assurance that there will be no cash losers among existing recipients. The Chancellor can set any rates or thresholds that he likes for people who come into the system or who continue in it, but do the Government believe that, no matter what those are, the principle of no cash losers is at stake? It seems that the Minister wants to keep cash losses on the table.
      Dawn Primarolo: I am not going to help the hon. Gentleman to make his points about whether there are losers in the transition to the new tax credits, which he made in the press. As I said to him and to other Committee members and Members of the House, it is clear that the Chancellor will take all considerations into his calculations. Thresholds and tapers, which will influence all those who transfer into the new tax credits, will be announced in the Budget statement. The hon. Gentleman is trying to crack open that debate now so that he can continue to advance the arguments that he made in the press. I understand why he wants to do that as an Opposition Member. However, he will understand, because I have said this to him so often, that the Chancellor will make the announcement in the Budget statement.
      Mr. Flight: Is the Paymaster General aware of the principle of Newton's law, named after Tony Newton? It clearly established that there should be no cash losers when welfare benefits change. For the record, the Minister is saying that this Government do not follow that principle.
      Dawn Primarolo: That is not the Newton's law that immediately came to my mind. If you will excuse the pun, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a fruitless debate. All hon. Members know that rates and tapers are the subject of the Budget announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The Bill and our debates on it have been widely welcomed by everyone who is concerned about simplicity and transparency and about ensuring that families on the lowest incomes get the most support from our policies to tackle child poverty.

      1061
      New clause 4 deals with the interaction of the working tax credit with housing benefit and council tax benefit. It would prevent the working tax credit from being taken into account in assessing entitlement to either of those benefits and would mean that people in work had a higher entitlement to benefits. I am not sure that that would produce the bed of roses that the hon. Member for Northavon might suppose.
      Of primary importance to any family or individual is the overall package of support that they receive if they are in low-income work. A family with children could receive a combination of child benefit, child tax credit, working tax credit and housing and council tax benefits on top of their earnings. The Government are committed to ensuring that the overall package provides sufficient incentives for families to move into work and, once they are working, to increase their earnings.
      The hon. Gentleman is well versed in the interactions of tapers and their effects on incentives to move into work. A key factor is the effect of the interaction of the various elements of the package on overall withdrawal rates. I know that the hon. Gentleman and many of my hon. Friends are concerned about the impact of that on rental costs in some parts of the country. It might help if I outline the effect of the new clause on the current system because it does not deliver what the hon. Gentleman wants.
      If the working families tax credit were not taken into account in housing benefit and council tax benefit, the combined withdrawal rates of the two credits would increase significantly, producing a total withdrawal rate of around 125 per cent., so people would be worse off for working harder. The underlying principles, if not the precise numbers, are the same for the working tax credit as they are for the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit.
      The Government are committed to improving work incentives. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about areas with high rents. We have discussed that in the context of housing benefit, and the Department for Work and Pensions is considering the problem. Far from improving things, new clause 4 would cut across the work that we are doing to ensure that people are better off in work. In addition, its effects would not be well targeted, so not only would it result in a withdrawal rate of 125 per cent. but the targeting would cause problems. Housing benefit and council tax benefit are withdrawn as incomes increase, ensuring that those on the lowest incomes get the most support. Apart from a small disregard, net earnings are taken fully into account in housing and council tax benefits. It would not make any sense to treat the working tax credit, which is designed to boost net earnings, more favourably than earnings themselves.
      New clause 4 would not work. Indeed, it would make things worse. The debate allows the hon. Gentleman to highlight the interaction between high-rent areas and housing benefit payments. None the less, the new clause would destroy all the work incentives and the possibilities offered by the working tax credit. That might be his intention; I know that he is not a fan of the working tax credit. However, the new clause does not impress its virtues on the Government.
      1062
      I am trying to explain the Government's intentions and how we view the interaction between benefits and the new tax credit. The interaction is especially important when we consider the passporting of benefits, which is dealt with in new clauses 7 and 8.
      2.30 pm
      New clauses 7 and 8 set out to probe the Government's intentions regarding entitlement to what are commonly known as the passported benefits—benefits provided by other Government Departments, for example, free school meals provided by the Department for Education and Skills, and free prescriptions and dental treatment provided by Department of Health. Those benefits, and many more besides, use entitlement to certain key social security benefits and tax credits as a peg in decisions on who should get access to them, as a way to reduce the administration and difficulties involved in making sure that benefits get through.
      Passported benefits remain the responsibility of the administering Departments, not of the Treasury; it is for those Departments to set the rules for entitlement and decide what level of income brings a family into entitlement. For those reasons, it is inappropriate to legislate for other Government Departments in the Bill, even though the Bill gives powers to provide information to the other Departments to undertake passporting.
      The key issues in passporting are, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned, those who are floated off income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance when the child elements of those benefits are removed, and what we do to ensure that people who had passported benefits continue to receive them in the new tax credits. The latest estimates suggest that about 70,000 families, out of a total 1.3 million currently receiving income support or jobseeker's allowance, will no longer receive the benefits as a result of the changes. Naturally, we are anxious to ensure that their entitlements are protected.
      The Department for Work and Pensions will make proposals on how those families will be treated in due course, once the rates, tapers and income rules have been determined. Families that are floated off will be contacted well in advance by that Department and offered an interview; they will be provided with all the details and with help to secure their position.
      In previous discussions, hon. Members have asked about entitlement to free school meals and free milk for the young children—the so-called welfare foods scheme—of those floated off income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance. They are two specific issues on which I can offer more detail on the Government's thinking.
      On 24 January, my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards made it clear to the Committee considering the Education Bill that the Government intend to put in place measures to guarantee that those who are floated off income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance because of the introduction of the new tax credits will not lose their access to free school meals—they will be protected. Today, I can confirm that similar arrangements will be put in place to maintain that group's entitlements to the welfare foods category of benefits.
      I am trying to reassure the House that those who are currently passported to certain benefits will continue to be passported on the same basis as now. It is necessary that

      1063
      the Government Departments involved develop new regulations using the new tax credits to ensure that there is no loss. I am confident that that will be achieved.
      I hope that in the light of my explanation of how the amendments are technically flawed and would make matters worse, and my reassurances about passported benefits, together with the fact that I am not persuaded to make today an announcement on rates and tapers that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is due to make in his Budget statement, the amendments and new clauses will be withdrawn. If they are pressed to a vote, regrettably I shall have to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they oppose them in the Lobby.
      Mr. Flight rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again. Only the mover of the lead new clause can do so.
      Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for putting on the record some of the issues that we had no time to discuss in Committee, especially those relating to passporting. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) can decide for himself whether or not he is satisfied with the hon. Lady's response.
      Taking our new clauses in reverse order, I accept the Paymaster General's explanation of new clause 4's effect on the marginal tax rate. I would go so far as to say that I made a mistake—that is not the effect intended. However, she did not satisfy us on the principle. Her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions were prepared to say in respect of pension credit that they will put up housing benefit thresholds to ensure that the benefit of the credit gets through. That credit is not due to start until October 2003. That Department is prepared to assure people that it will adjust rates and thresholds to ensure that they will get the benefit 18 months or so down the line, but the Paymaster General is not prepared to assure them that what they are given with one hand through the working tax credit will not be taken away with the other through housing benefit even 12 months down the line.
      Whatever the merits of the new clause, the Paymaster General might have offered us some reassurance. The issue of high housing costs can only be addressed with reference to the effects on the housing benefit system, because the only way to identify those who have the combination of low income and high housing costs is through housing benefit. The hon. Lady said that the new clause would not deal with the problem, but did not say what would. I think that she recognises there is a problem, but she gave no sense that the Government intend to deal with it, nor any indication of how they might do so. We are disappointed by the Government's response to new clause 4, which, although it would not achieve what we intended, at least raises the issue.
      It is interesting to compare the Paymaster General's response on passported benefits to her response on continued entitlement to the children's tax credit. On passported benefits, she gave an assurance that there would be no losers—people getting free school meals now will get them in future—but there was no such assurance on the children's tax credit: that will be dealt with in the
      1064
      Budget. What is the difference of principle between the two? [Interruption.] None—it is decent of the hon. Lady to say that. After all, I have admitted that I was wrong.
      People are getting credits now and they want an assurance that they will continue to do so in future. We are delighted by the assurance that free school meals will be carried over; why can we not have a similar assurance on the children's tax credit? As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, when structural changes are made there tends to be a principle whereby attempts are made to avoid cash losers. People then work their way through the system and inflation does its bit, but people are protected when changes are made.
      Whatever rates and thresholds the Chancellor chooses—we are not trying to pre-empt his decision—we seek an assurance today that those who currently receive money will be protected and that there is a principle of no cash losers at work. However, the Paymaster General has reserved the option, in effect saying that she wants to leave for the Chancellor in the Budget the discretion not merely to set the rates and thresholds that he wants to set, but to take some or all of the £520 a year that those hard-working families are getting.
      My hon. Friends and I are concerned that the Chancellor wants to reserve that option. We therefore want to test the opinion of the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 245.

      Division No. 163]

      [2.38 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Amess, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bacon, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Barker, Gregory

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Baron, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Beggs, Roy

      Flight, Howard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Flook, Adrian

      Bercow, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Boswell, Tim

      Francois, Mark

      Brady, Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brake, Tom

      Garnier, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Gibb, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burnett, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodman, Paul

      Butterfill, John

      Gray, James

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Grayling, Chris

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Cameron, David

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      (NE Fife)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hammond, Philip

      Cash, William

      Hams, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Harvey, Nick

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chope, Christopher

      Hayes, John

      Clappison, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Collins, Tim

      Hoban, Mark

      Conway, Derek

      Holmes, Paul

      1065

      Horam, John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Key, Robert

      Ruffley, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Salmond, Alex

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Laws, David

      Simmonds, Mark

      Letwin, Oliver

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

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Loughton, Tim

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Spink, Bob

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spring, Richard

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Swayne, Desmond

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Swire, Hugo

      Malins, Humfrey

      Syms, Robert

      Maples, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mates Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maude, Rd Hon Francis

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Thurso, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Tyler Paul

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tyrie Andrew

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Oaten, Mark

      Waterson, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Öpik, Lembit

      Webb, Steve

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Weir, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Page, Richard

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Paice, James

      Wiggin, Bill

      Pickles, Eric

      Wilkinson, John

      Price, Adam

      Willetts, David

      Prisk, Mark

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Willis, Phil

      Randall, John

      Wishart, Pete

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Mr. David Heath and

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Richard Younger-Ross.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brennan, Kevin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      (Swansea E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Browne, Desmond

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Burgon, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cairns, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Casale, Roger

      Banks, Tony

      Cawsey, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Challen, Colin

      Battle, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Chaytor, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Bell, Stuart

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Benn, Hilary

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Berry, Roger

      (Norwich S)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clelland, David

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Clwyd, Ann

      Borrow, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      1066

      Connarty, Michael

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Kemp, Fraser

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cruddas, Jon

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Cummings, John

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Laxton, Bob

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lepper, David

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Leslie, Christopher

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Levitt, Tom

      David, Wayne

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Linton, Martin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lloyd, Tony

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Love, Andrew

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Luke, Iain

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lyons, John

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McCabe, Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      McCafferty, Chris

      Drew, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Drown, Ms Julia

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Edwards, Huw

      McDonnell, John

      Efford, Clive

      MacDougall, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Etherington, Bill

      McIsaac, Shona

      Farrelly, Paul

      McKechin, Ann

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      McNulty, Tony

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McWilliam, John

      Flint, Caroline

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Flynn, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Meale, Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Merron, Gillian

      Gardiner, Barry

      Miliband, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Miller, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Moffatt, Laura

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mole, Chris

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grogan, John

      Moran, Margaret

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Norris, Dan

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hanson, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hendrick, Mark

      Perham, Linda

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pike, Peter

      Heppell, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Hermon, Lady

      Pollard, Kerry

      Heyes, David

      Pond, Chris

      Hill, Keith

      Pound, Stephen

      Hinchliffe, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hurst, Alan

      Rammell, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rooney, Terry

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ryan, Joan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Salter, Martin

      Joyce, Eric

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sawford, Phil

      1067

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Simon, Siôn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Soley, Clive

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Southworth, Helen

      Wareing, Robert N

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      (Swansea W)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winnick, David

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wood, Mike

      Stringer, Graham

      Woolas, Phil

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Todd, Mark

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Truswell, Paul

      Angela Smith.

      Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

  MEANS OF PAYMENT OF TAX CREDITS TO RECIPIENTS
  ?(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person to whom an award of tax credit has been made shall be entitled to receive it by means of a book of serial orders at a post office.

  (2)Regulations may provide that the entitlement in subsection (1) shall end when arrangements are in place for any recipient who so wishes to receive payment into a basic account accessible at a Post Office in which case that entitlement shall be replaced by an entitlement to payment into such an account.

  (3)This section applies to payments—

  (a)of child tax credit and any payments of working tax credit being made directly by the Board under section 23, and

  (b)of working tax credit being paid by employers by virtue of section 24.'. —[Mr. Heath.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 15, in page 16, line 20, at beginning insert—
  ?Subject to section (Means of payment of tax credits to recipients)'.
  No. 13, in page 16, line 30, at end insert—
  ?subject to employers consulting with their employees as to whether they would prefer working tax credit payments to be made by the Board directly.'.
  No. 16, in page 16, line 30, at end insert—
  '(1A) Regulations under this section shall not apply to an employer with fewer than 15 employees'.
  No. 14, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
  '(8) The Board will refund to employers their costs incurred in making payments of working tax credit to employees.
  (9) No employer with 20 or fewer employees will be bound by the regulations set out in this section.'.
  Mr. Heath: Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 were tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will speak to amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 15 is simply a paving amendment for new clause 2.
  The new clause deals with the payment of tax credits through the sub-post office system. It is a great delight to engage the attention of yet another Department on the matter of sub-post offices, as we are already talking simultaneously to two Departments. Nothing would please me more than if the new clause were to be unnecessary when events reach their conclusion next year.
  We greatly welcomed the performance and innovation unit report and its comments on the universal banking service. We hope that it will be put in place satisfactorily, but we do not share the Government's confidence that that will necessarily be the case. In that view, we have allies, not least the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which has serious concerns about the readiness of the Government systems to implement what the NFSP sees as an important part of the strategy for the future survival and development of the sub-post office system. As we know—I will not go into a long history of sub-post offices, as that would be unnecessary to the prosecution of the argument for the new clause—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That would not only be unnecessary, but it might take us outside the scope of the discussion that we should be having.
  Mr. Heath: Absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I obviously phrased my comment badly. I meant to say that to widen the scope to include the history of sub-post offices would be inappropriate to the debate. However, to deal specifically with the payment systems within sub-post offices, which is the substance of the new clause, is necessary.
  As we know, three forms of bank account are to be offered by sub-post offices. I need to deal with only two: the basic bank account, which will provide basic banking services through the clearing banks but situated in the sub-post offices, and the Post Office card account. That baseline provision is the most critical element. It is designed for those who have not had or do not want a bank account, but still need to receive their benefits through the sub-post office system, and for whom we would suggest that the tax credit is also a relevant factor.
  The Government were tardy in getting arrangements under way for that basic payment system. There seems to have been almost no progress under the aegis of the Department of Trade and Industry. Perhaps for that reason some rattling of the cages was necessary in autumn last year, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was appointed as a sort of universal bank tsar. We know that, last October, the contracts had not been placed with the companies that were to put in the infrastructure.
  In a letter to Mr. Colin Baker, the general secretary of the NFSP, on 19 October, the director of postal services—network and markets—in the DTI commented:
  "There is a lot to do to put in place these sophisticated, if commonplace, banking arrangements".
  That is a masterpiece of understatement. The IT project in question is massive, if not revolutionary. It involves a great deal of development work, provision of

  1069
  infrastructure and training. None of those were in place in October. The contracts were not let until November, when a decision was taken to split the contracts between the basic bank account, which was to be provided by LINK Interchange Network Ltd., and the Post Office bank account, to be provided by EDS/Citibank.
  Since then, I have had a number of meetings with representatives of those companies and with representatives of IT companies on a wider front. The one word that keeps coming back to me about the project is "challenging". We can assume that that means well nigh impossible to deliver on the date on which Ministers still assure us it will happen. One of the leading IT manufacturers told me that the industry norm for such a project would be to have it developed and operational at least 12 months before it was to go live. That time would be needed to identify difficulties, to train the personnel who were to install the system and use it and to ensure that it was working to everyone's satisfaction.
  Twelve months before the new payment system is to go live is the beginning of April this year, yet we know that the contracts have only just been let and that progress on development is limited. We are at a loss to know how personnel are to be trained, as the Government tell us nothing about that. We are at a loss to know what the migration policy is—what its objectives are, let alone how it is to be implemented. Again, the Government will not tell us. They will not tell us anything at all about the project. They merely repeat that it will be all right on the night and that the system will be ready in April.
  Nothing would delight me more than if that were the case, but if not, there is an argument that for other benefits, there is a period of migration which allows for flexibility, but the child tax credit is not a mobile target. It is to come into effect in April 2003, so there is a fixed deadline for that element of tax credit. There are serious fears that the system will not be ready. The new clause would provide a plan B for the Government. They may well need such a plan to allow people to receive their payments through the Post Office on the specified date if they do not have a bank account.
  3 pm
  What is the argument against such an alternative? The only argument against the ability to make such arrangements if the Post Office card account is not ready is that the Government want to move people towards basic bank accounts instead of towards the Post Office card account. That is what the clearing banks think. They feel that they have been sold a pup and coerced into providing the services, while the Government do not intend the card account to be ready on the day. If it is not ready, people will be pushed into basic bank accounts, irrespective of their wishes. The post offices share that suspicion and see such a move as very retrograde, as people who have bank accounts may well opt for the bank rather than the Post Office. All the benefits that would accrue to the Post Office system would then be nugatory. Clearly, the Government have an argument in terms of reducing costs, but not in terms of providing the choice that they have always maintained to be the basis of their proposals. That is why the new clause would provide an appropriate safety belt for the Government and for the system.
  The new clause has another separate purpose. Subsection (3) would extend the payment system for working tax credit into the same payment framework as
  1070
  the other payments. That is another very important aspect of the new clause. I understand that the Government's argument against the proposal is that they want to preserve the linkage of working tax credit with work, but they take the deeply patronising view that recipients can make the connection only if two lines to that effect are written on their pay cheque, rather than on their bank statement. That view is wrong.
  The arguments for providing the option proposed in the new clause—it is not a compulsory course of action—are threefold. First, it would reduce costs for employers. That is a valuable objective and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge will amplify that point in terms of small employers if he can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Secondly, it would extend control to the recipient, which is right in itself. Thirdly, it would help to safeguard our post office network—something that hon. Members in all parts of the House would see as a key objective.
  David Cairns: Surely the proposal would achieve a significant reduction in an employer's costs only if all the employees in a company opted to take their payment through their payment book at the Post Office. If one employee did not take the option—the hon. Gentleman said that it is an option and is not compulsory—the employer would still have to set up the system, fill in the forms and cross a certain cost threshold. A significant saving will be secured only if all the employees of a firm opt to go to the Post Office. How will he make that happen?
  Mr. Heath: I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is perhaps talking about big business and has never had experience of a small business with a small number of employees. It is perfectly possible that all the employees in such a business might opt for the proposal, not least because there might be only one employee who is receiving the relevant payment.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point of the proposal is to give people a choice? It is important that people should have such an option.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Typically, the Government want to extend not choice, but compulsion, because there is only one way of delivering the objectives that they have in mind. We reject that position and I think that he probably rejects it as well.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) mentioned set-up costs. The other costs that are borne by employers—the £90 million a year that the package will cost—are related to individual transactions. Although the set-up costs will be lost if all employees opt out, costs will still be reduced even if some of them remain in the system and are paid as before through their payroll, because there is a transaction cost as well as a set-up cost.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely and transparently correct. The matter involves not all employees, but those who are receiving working tax credit. Often, only relatively small numbers of

  1071
  employees would be involved, so it is not unrealistic to assume that the new clause would have tangible benefits for employers.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak to the new clause, so I shall conclude my remarks. I repeat that this is a win-win situation for the Government. No additional cost would accrue to them and the new clause would provide real benefits for individuals. It would safeguard our post offices at a time when many people are yet to be convinced that the Government's proposals, however creditable, will be in place when they are needed to safeguard the system. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Flight: The first part of the new clause deals with an issue that was extensively discussed in Committee. I put it to the House that there is not only a likelihood but an extremely strong probability that the arrangements that the Government envisage for delivering the new tax credits in April 2003, essentially through the universal bank, will not be in place. When the subject was discussed in Committee, after we had asked a number of questions, the Paymaster General effectively said that the Government accepted that that could happen and that standby arrangements were in place to deliver payment—it certainly included the child tax credit—by coupons or order books at post offices. I looked through the Bill, but could not find where it provides for such arrangements, so in principle, the new clause seems to be necessary to ensure that they are covered.
  Rather than commenting on the proposed arrangements for the option on payment of working tax credit, however, I should like to focus on amendment No. 13. The Government are well aware that the Opposition believe in principle that the arguments stack up in favour of paying working tax credit not through employers but directly to recipients. One of the main arguments that they have put forward for paying it through employers is that of stigma. Amendment No. 13 is designed to test that argument. Rather like the second part of the new clause, it seeks to offer an appropriate option on a collective basis. Therefore, it requires a consultation process between employers and employees to take place before the obligation for employers to pay the credit through the pay packet takes effect. Implicit in the proposal is the idea that, if a majority of employees prefer to be paid directly by the board, that is the arrangement into which the company would enter.
  We are extremely surprised that the Government have paid no heed to the arguments against paying working tax credit directly to beneficiaries. The evidence—in so far as it exists—is indeed that more stigma is attached to payment through the pay packet, as people's personal backgrounds will implicitly be known by their employers and often, as a result, by their work colleagues. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has made the point that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, employers in smaller businesses could be discouraged from employing people if that entailed the hassle of administering working tax credit. There is strong evidence that the stigma element would be greater as a result of payment through the pay packet than as a result of direct payment.
  David Cairns: This is one of the issues that I hope to raise later. The hon. Gentleman has twice referred to
  1072
  extensive evidence that greater stigma attaches to payment through the pay packet than to payment through the order book. Other than the anecdotal evidence that he has given, can he outline exactly what that extensive evidence is?
  Mr. Flight: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the studies, which I have already mentioned, undertaken by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  Have the Government taken into consideration the fact that people in marriages and partnerships frequently hold joint bank accounts, and that those accounts might sometimes come under pressure from the more powerful character in the partnership? Going back to the child tax credit, one of the results of paying everything automatically through a bank account, as the Government wish to do, is that that might undermine their correct intention that the money should go to the carer.
  The Government suggested, somewhat unenthusiastically, in Committee that if the recipients of child tax credit really wanted to go on receiving their payment through vouchers that were cashable at post offices, they would be able to do so. It is still not clear whether that is a realistic option. If there is a genuine intent that child tax credit should go to the carer, I suggest that that is more likely to be achieved by permitting those at the poorer end of society, in particular, to receive it through vouchers, rather than by forcing them down the bank payment route.
  I return to the question whether working tax credit should be paid directly, which we believe remains the better option, or by employers. The Government have refused to accept that the result of what they are seeking to achieve will be to produce a social wage. People will take home a certain amount of money, but they will not understand the details in terms of whether they have paid tax, or of how much of the new negative tax rate income they have got back. They will simply have a sum of money. In many cases, their take-home pay will bear no relation to the economic market value of the job that they are doing.
  We remain concerned that that will act as a disincentive to people to up-skill themselves and to improve the amount that they earn, and as an overall disincentive to productivity improvements in the economy. I urge the Government to be a little suspicious of the CBI's support for payment via the payroll. It is clear that that is attractive, and I recollect the Paymaster General making certain references to that effect. There are attractions to employers in having pay subsidies, because they reduce the pressure to pay a proper rate for the job and exert downward pressures on rates of pay. If the Government ignore that important aspect of the question, they do so at their peril and in the face of what is already happening.
  3.15 pm
  Amendment No. 14 is a probing amendment, and we discussed some of the issues involved in Committee. The proposal is a response to the issues raised by the Government's better regulation task force and by the Carter report. The burdens of administration transferred on to businesses by the Government have fallen particularly on small companies with fewer than four employees. That represents something like £25 million out of their total costs. Worse than that, of

  1073
  that £25 million, small companies spend some £15 million not on payments but merely on keeping on top of the regulations and the requirement to know what they are supposed to be doing.
  We have argued consistently that it is undesirable for small businesses to be burdened with such administrative costs and focuses, when their main task is simply to keep their business alive. The Liberal Democrat amendment has proposed a slightly smaller minimum floor at which businesses would be exempt than the one that we have proposed, but it deals with the same issue of principle. Will the Government consider the points made by Lord Haskins and his taskforce in relation to small businesses?
  Mr. Mark Field: Prior to entering this place, I ran a small business that would have come within the scope of the Liberal Democrat amendment and our own, in terms of the number of employees. My concern is that whatever level is set, when a company gets near to that level it will provide a big disincentive to taking on any more employees. I am sure that that point will be addressed by the Minister later. What thoughts does my hon. Friend have on the matter?
  Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I was about to come to the other part of our amendment, which proposes that the Government should consider measures for the Board of the Inland Revenue to refund to companies the cost of administering working tax credit, if they remain charged with that burden. Again, this is a probing amendment, and we have touched on this subject before.
  After consulting widely with businesses, it is clear that they understood that the relevant territory covered by the Carter review and the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not just concerned with technical arrangements for payroll—which, I grant, is most of Carter's territory, as the Paymaster General has pointed out. Businesses also understood that the Chancellor had indicated in the pre-Budget report that the Government would consider some refunding of costs for administration carried out on behalf of the Government in relation to working tax credit. That is particularly relevant to small businesses, if they are not to be exempt.
  The total administrative costs for businesses is now of the order of £250 million a year, which covers tax credits, student loan repayments and the administration of stakeholder pensions. The Government will be turning a blind eye if they do not appreciate that business perceives them to have recognised those costs and to be thinking of doing something about them. In Committee, it was clear that the Government were not interested in so doing, and that they felt that businesses should be very pleased with the working tax credit because it would subsidise employment for them. However, I wish to give the Paymaster General a further opportunity to consider the matter, because that is certainly what business expects.
  The amendments grouped with new clause 2 interact and relate to each other, but there are separate issues to consider. First, will the Government even be able to deliver the child tax credit, given the running-down of post offices, the likely failure of the universal bank and the lack of provision in the Bill for an alternative? Secondly, will they reconsider giving employees at least
  1074
  the option to receive working tax credit payments directly, whether on a corporate basis or as specified in new clause 2(2), when they express a wish to do so? Thirdly, it is necessary to tease out of the Government yet again whether they are willing to compensate business for the costs of administering their programmes.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I support the new clause and the amendments grouped with it and want particularly to discuss further the effects on employers. As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments differ only in detail rather than principle. The principles are one and the same.
  I have looked up some figures on small businesses. Although I do not have a figure for the number of businesses that employ 15 or 20 people, 83 per cent. of companies employ 10 people or fewer. It might be argued that if 83 per cent. of businesses were exempted from the proposal it would have a dramatic effect, but it would not, because only about 20 per cent. of employees would be affected. Therefore, it is possible, and with minimal effect, to encourage enterprise and remove a burden from a very large number of businesses.
  Let us consider the overall cost of the burden on small businesses, which is constantly growing and never seems to diminish. The British Chambers of Commerce has compiled figures from the regulatory impact assessment prepared by the Government. The total updated cost, until May 2002, now runs to £15.6 billion. The working tax credit will cost some £262 million and the student repayment loan—another burden on small businesses£255 million. Businesses, especially small businesses, are bearing heavy burdens that have an effect on the ability to grow and progress.
  Without wanting to put words in its mouth, I am sure that the British Chambers of Commerce would support the Conservative amendment as much as ours. I have a note from it:
  "The British Chambers of Commerce very much welcomes this amendment. In the week it published its own Regulatory Reform Action Plan. It shows Government how to seriously go about cutting the burdens on business. Government will no doubt spout out figures about only 1 in 8 businesses being affected by tax credits, but that 1 in 8 equates to 175,000 small businesses."
  That is a heavy burden.
  Let us consider what other employer organisations say about tax credits. The CBI has spoken in favour and its parliamentary brief says:
  "The CBI supported the introduction of the tax credits system … as a valuable way of incentivising work."
  However, it warns:
  "The CBI believes that, if there is no possibility of administering the tax credits system within the Inland Revenue, employers should be compensated for the administrative costs associated with running the scheme."
  That proposal is included in one of the amendments. Other amendments might also reduce the burden and cost by exempting a large number of businesses from having to administer the scheme.
  The Bath report considered tax credits and concluded that
  "the pattern of compliance costs discriminates against small employers in that the bottom thirty per cent of employers bear seventy five per cent of the compliance costs."

  1075
  That cannot be right. New Labour wants "New Britain" to have an enterprise culture and, if we are to have an enterprise culture, encouraging small businesses to thrive is vital.
  Some 90 per cent. of Government revenue is collected by businesses. Employers are responsible for statutory sick pay and maternity pay administration. Family-friendly schemes introduced in the past two years such as the Employment Relations Act 1999, the working time directive, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the national minimum wage, which I support in principle, are all burdens on businesses, and on small businesses in particular.
  Mr. Webb: Lest my hon. Friend be misunderstood or misquoted, I presume that he is drawing a distinction between measures such as the minimum wage, which we supported and which are beneficial, and tax credits, which can be delivered other than through the pay packet. Whereas the minimum wage can be delivered only in that way, tax credits need not be a burden on business.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that distinction. I am not saying that we do not support some of those measures, the burden of which must be borne by business, but we must consider the overall burden; if it is not necessary for business to bear a particular burden, it should not have to do so. Small businesses can therefore be exempted and encouraged. We must look at the total picture and not consider such matters in isolation.
  America has, in principle, exempted businesses by using the standard of turnover of less than $500,000. Alternatively, companies that employ fewer than 15 people or fewer than 20 people are exempt from certain legislation. That proves that such measures can be achieved in an enterprise culture.
  In France, small businesses hold a nominal percentage of the tax collected to help them with the tax collection burden. The cost of tax and national insurance collection for large UK companies with more than 5,000 employees is about £5 per employee. The cost for companies employing between 1,000 and 5,000 people is about £30 per employee. For companies with between 500 and 999 employees, the cost is about £29 per employee. However, the cost for very small companies with between one and four employees is an astronomical £288 per employee.
  I know that the Government are minded to help small businesses and are aware of the burdens of regulation. The Prime Minister commented on the working time directive in November 1999:
  "I can see myself how some of the regulation is over the top. The problem is being recognised but more needs to be done."
  If the burden has been recognised and more needs to be done, we have an opportunity to relieve the burden through the Bill.
  The Minister responsible for small businesses was quoted in The Sunday Times on 30 January 2000:
  "It is about balancing the right of individual employees to fair treatment against demands on the employer. Once you get to 20 people it is very different from running a tiny company."
  That is one reason why the figure I quoted is slightly lower—the differences are in that band.
  1076
  Devon has many small businesses—about 37,000. More than three quarters of employers throughout Devon have fewer than 10 employees. I want those businesses to thrive, prosper and grow, but they will not do so if we increase the burden on very small businesses. Instead of being able to climb the mountain of success, they will come across a rock face that they find hard to scale. Progressing from being self-employed to employing others should be made as easy possible, so I ask the Government to consider their response to the amendments carefully.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Hoban: I welcome the grouping of the new clause and the amendments, because together they point up one of the issues at the heart of the Bill: the obligation on businesses to pay working tax credit, leading to a high burden on employers. Employers have to bear the cost of administration of working tax credit only because they are required to pay that credit to their employees.
  Let me remind the House of the burdens that the Government have placed on businesses. The cost of the Bill, as set out in the regulatory impact assessment, is about £90 million. I welcome the reduction compared with the previous regime, but it is still a significant cost on business. Employers face a problem. In a survey conducted by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants in July 2001, 97 per cent. of respondents felt that the burden of payroll compliance had increased since April 1997, and 78 per cent. referred specifically to the administration costs of the working families tax credit.
  The real cost falls on smaller businesses. The average payroll cost per head for a business with between one and five employees is £288. That is a terrific cost when compared with the cost for businesses employing more than 5,000 employees, which averages at about £5 a head.
  I am especially interested in amendment No. 16, which has the deficiencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) highlighted earlier. By setting a limit of 15 employees, it would create an artificial barrier to taking on additional employees. That stands in contrast to amendment No. 14, under which the Board of Inland Revenue would refund employers' costs but which has an opt-out provision for companies with fewer than 20 employees, whose tax credits would be paid directly by the Inland Revenue.
  It is a shame that amendment No. 14 is needed at all, because I would much rather the Government did not impose this burden on businesses, but by requiring the Inland Revenue to reimburse the costs it would demonstrate to the Government once and for all the true cost of compliance. Far too often, the Government impose burdens on business without understanding the true cost. Estimates are published in regulatory impact assessments that are riddled with caveats and assumptions. The amendment would lift part of the £90 million burden from business, and the other part of the burden would disappear for businesses with fewer than 20 employees.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred to the consultations between employers and employees concerning whether benefits should be paid directly to employees by the Inland Revenue, rather than by the employers. Some people have a problem with tax credits being paid through payroll services, because they want to separate clearly their

  1077
  personal lives and domestic finances from their lives at work. They do not want their employers to know about changes in personal circumstances, such as divorce or-a term that was used in Committee-partnering up, which affect the payment of tax credits. I suspect that many employees, following consultations with employers, will opt for direct payment. Many will prefer that, and it will remove some of the perceived stigma attaching to the credits.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to post offices. Too often in debates on post offices, people refer solely to the rural post office network and the sub-post offices there. Those of us who represent urban areas also have a network of sub-post offices that we wish to sustain. That is an important factor to be borne in mind. The option to enable payment through post offices, either through the order book system, which will act as a failsafe in case the universal bank does not come into effect—as seems increasingly likely—or through such a bank account, will generate the traffic that sub-post offices in urban and rural areas need to sustain their business.
  Quite often, the shops are not just a post office counter but provide a wide range of services and are a valuable local amenity. Any measure that will improve the traffic flowing through the sub-post offices is valuable.
  Mr. Heath: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the important distinction between urban and rural post offices and explaining the fact that this applies to both. I was at pains to mention the sub-post office network rather than just rural post offices, because the impact of the loss of benefit traffic is often greater on the urban sub-post offices, which rely on it more heavily.
  Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Often, urban sub-post offices rely on the trade from benefit, as it were, to keep them afloat. They also often exist in some of the most deprived areas of our constituencies, where people are least likely to be able to travel from their homes to a main post office in the town centre. In our consideration of the hon. Gentleman's proposals, the importance of sub-post offices to elderly people and young mothers should not be underestimated.
  The new clause and the amendments are designed to preserve some of the social fabric of our rural and urban communities and would help to reduce the costs imposed on businesses. We should not be too churlish about the actions that the Government have taken to reduce those costs through their reform of the tax credits system—in Committee, the Paymaster General referred to some of the representations that she had received from business organisations welcoming the changes—but I hope that the House will take advantage of the opportunity that we now have to reduce those burdens once and for all by enabling employers with fewer than 20 employees to have the tax credits paid directly to those employees, and by ensuring that other businesses have their costs reimbursed by those who impose them—in this case, Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Swire: I am particularly interested in this group of amendments, tabled by ourselves and the Liberal Democrats, because I represent a constituency that, like that of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), has a lot of small businesses. My local
  1078
  businesses employ an average of between three and five people. We are a diverse community, largely rural but with some urban areas—and, if I may do so without straying too far from the new clause, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about post offices and how they fit into that pattern.
  Having sat through the Standing Committee stage—that was a steep learning curve for me—I believe that when the Government introduce new legislation they have an opportunity that they do not always get: the opportunity to get things right. Our amendments will steer them in that direction.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Fligh0t) spoke lucidly about post offices and the role that the universal bank will play. It is true—although I must not go over old ground—that many of the neediest people, to whom the Bill will be of most benefit, do not have bank accounts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said, those people—such as the elderly and single mothers—would usually find it easier to go to their local post office, whether they live in a rural or an urban area.
  New clause 2 says that anyone who so wishes should be able to
  "receive payment into a basic account accessible at a Post Office".
  That raises the question of what an accessible post office is, and what is accessible once people get there. One of the problems in rural areas is the number of post offices that are closing. There is some evidence that the rate at which—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. We are talking about tax credits, not the future of the post office network.
  Mr. Swire: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying not to stray too far from the new clause, but obviously I failed.
  When we think about how we want people to receive their benefits, we must recognise the role of post offices. At this stage I shall make only a few comments about the burden on business, because we shall be debating that subject all afternoon. We have heard comments from the CBI, the Institute of Directors and others, but we should also listen to the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce.
  As I have said, most of my local businesses in East Devon employ very few people. Small businesses represent the engine room of the economy, and any Government who want that engine room to grow should aspire to enable those companies to employ more people. Yet the Bill as it stands acts as a disincentive to employing 15 or 20 people. What on earth is the incentive to expand a business if that merely invites extra costs and red tape?
  I fully agree with the comments that have been made about stigma; indeed, the stigma may apply more in small businesses, where people are more likely to know each other socially than people in larger businesses. The fact that people's pay packets may not be a true reflection of the job that they do could cause dissent, and will be bad for morale.

  1079
  I urge the Government to take on board what the Opposition are saying, and especially to recognise that post offices will have a problem, particularly between now and when the universal bank is set up. Our suggestions would give the Government a real opportunity to do what they claim they wish to do, and help those hard-pressed sub-post offices. They have the opportunity at least to nod towards the concerns expressed by the various bodies that represent small businesses, such as the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, which are worried about ever-increasing regulation and red tape, and the interference in the lives of people employed by small businesses. I hope that the Government will take our amendments in good part, and respond to them later.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I think that all those who served on the Standing Committee would admit that it was good natured throughout its proceedings. Whatever differences there might have been between the two sides of the Committee on some issues, there was a common desire to improve the lot of the poorer people who will benefit from this Bill. That spirit characterised our debates.
  The Committee was intimidating, too, because it included not only the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a distinguished lawyer, but the Paymaster General, who is one of the most talented Ministers in Her Majesty's Government, a professor of social policy representing the Liberal Democrats, and one of the most distinguished understanders of the City of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). Those of us with no such qualifications—apart from a dim memory of an economics degree—felt inhibited from speaking.
  On the issues relating to new clause 2 and the amendments that have been grouped with it, however, passions began to be aroused. Uniquely, we got the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) to intervene on that subject; it was his only contribution. The hon. Gentleman made the traditional old Labour case. I shall not quote his contribution in full, but he said:
  "I thank the hon. Gentleman"—
  I think that that was my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban)—
  "for this nostalgic trip back to the dark days of his Government, whereby any legislation enhancing the life of people"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will now be germane to the amendments that we are discussing.
  Mr. Luff: They will be strictly germane, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry for my rather lengthy introduction—hat was always a fault with my university essays, and I was regularly marked down for it.[Interruption.] I did not hear what the Paymaster General said then, but I hope that Hansard has recorded it, because it is always worth listening to what she has to say.
  1080
  The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire continued by saying that in times like the dark days of the Conservative Government:
  "any legislation enhancing the life of people in the lower quartile of our society suddenly becomes a burden on businesses…It is ridiculous in this day and age to say that about legislation that allows workers to work for less than 48 hours a week or sets a minimum wage, which takes people off benefits so that they do not need tax credits. It is nostalgic rubbish."
  I understand the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman was expressing, but if he were here I would invite him to reflect on exactly what our amendments would do. In Committee I talked about the road to hell being paved with good intentions—and to use another cliché this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. We all share a desire to enhance the lives of our poorer constituents, but we must look at the consequences of the mechanisms that we choose.
  If we put unacceptable burdens on the businesses that support those people, we risk destroying the mechanism that creates the jobs, which lies at the heart of any Government's ability—and the private sector's ability—to remove them from poverty. That is the crucial point.
  Ultimately, this is not a matter of great principle, but a matter of balance. We all accept that from time to time Governments must intervene in the affairs of the private sector to enhance some greater social good. As I made clear in Committee, that is a principle to which Conservative Governments have adhered down the centuries. The question is: when has that process gone too far? At what stage do we start putting that process at risk? Our amendments present the Government with a real case to be answered. They should say to themselves, "This may be the moment when the process has begun to go too far."
  I have already said that I have a high regard for the Paymaster General—but she was a bit naughty when she quoted so selectively from the words of the brief that the CBI sent to members of the Standing Committee. She described the CBI's position as follows: She said that the CBI brief stated:
  "The CBI supported the introduction of the tax credit system, including paying via the pay packet, as a valuable way of incentivising work. In that context, it also supports the extension of the principle of tax credits to employees without children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 January 2002; c. 143, 153.]
  All well and good. That is indeed what the CBI said in its briefing note, but sadly for the Paymaster General, who quoted only the first two sentences, that same paragraph continues:
  "Nevertheless, employers are concerned at the rising burden of payroll administration and their growing role as paymasters of the benefit system. When the government originally suggested payment via the pay packet it indicated that the system should be paid via tax codes, but this now appears impractical. The CBI believes that, if there is no possibility of administering the tax credits system within the Inland Revenue, employers should he compensated for the administrative costs associated with running the scheme."
  That is the full and complete CBI position, according to a paragraph from the briefing entitled "CBI position." With respect to the Paymaster General, that is what our new clauses seek to deliver: the CBI's position as fully expressed, and not as selectively quoted.

  1081
  I shall not trouble the House by quoting the briefing at length, because to do so would be tedious, but I shall read out its final paragraph, which is just one sentence long:
  "Over the longer term, the CBI remains convinced that a technical solution is required which will allow payment via the pay packet to be administered by the Inland Revenue and bypass need for employer intervention completely."
  The CBI is advocating an interim solution, and the Paymaster General must address this issue when she winds up this debate rather more convincingly than she did in Committee.
  Historically, the CBI has not been particularly good at speaking up for the interests of smaller businesses, but I am glad that, under Digby Jones, it at last seems to be doing so. That is the spirit and rationale that underlies the CBI's position. I am pleased to say that, typically, local chambers of commerce are rather better at standing up for smaller businesses, which would be affected by the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats and by my hon. Friends.
  The Herefordshire and Worcestershire chamber of commerce pointed out to me that a huge proportion of businesses in Worcestershire are smaller businesses. It said that 84 per cent. of businesses in Worcestershire employ 10 people or fewer, and that payroll costs create a real problem for such businesses. I shall read a paragraph from a letter from the chamber of commerce that I quoted in Standing Committee, because it is of huge importance and the whole House has a right to hear it:
  "Each of the tax credit or collection items adds an amount of administration and therefore cost to the job of operating the payroll. It must be remembered that the person doing the payroll is often the owner manager, their expertise is probably in the field in which they started the business and they will have varying degrees of expertise. People running small businesses already need to be multi skilled and able to turn their hands to many tasks, however there is a danger in increasing the non-core workload, that is not income generating, too much."
  Mr. Swire: Following on from what my hon. Friend has just said, does he agree with the similar comments of Donald Martin, the UK policy chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses? Mr. Martin said:
  "Businesses should not be treated as a social welfare arm of government. It is an invasion of employee privacy and a major distraction from the business of wealth creating activity."
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, but sadly, the scope of the new clauses and amendments under consideration does not allow us to debate—as I would like to do—invasion of privacy. We are focusing on the cost, and new clause 2, which I shall come to in a moment, focuses on the method of payment. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, however, and those are issues that have to be taken seriously.
  I urge the Paymaster General to recognise in her response that I am not trying to belittle the Government's attempts to reduce poverty. We all want to reduce poverty, but we must consider how to strike a balance and what mechanisms to use. It is probably asking too much for the Government to consider these new clauses and amendments sympathetically, but they should consider something similar in another place, or undertake to find another mechanism to reduce cost at a later stage, so that the CBI's long-term hope can come to fruition.
  A year or so ago, something happened in my constituency. The complaints that we have always heard from the small business sector acquired a new urgency
  1082
  and fervour. There was a change of spirit—I do not know what caused it—and the sense that the burden had become too great was suddenly made very vocal.
  In Standing Committee, the Paymaster General helpfully said that, in her view, the overall effect of the Bill might be to reduce the burdens on business. However, her confidence is not necessarily shared by the business sector itself, and experience certainly proves that that sector is right to be sceptical and cynical. It would help if she could explain why she is confident that, even at the margin, the proposals, without emendation, might reduce the burdens on business. That would be an encouraging message, if she can deliver on it.
  I realise that new clause 2 represents an example of the law of unintended consequences. It deals with the payment mechanism and is primarily inspired, I expect, by a desire to help the claimant by offering choice. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who spoke so effectively at the beginning of this debate, made clear, the Government appear to be hostile to offering choice in almost anything. However, offering the option of the payment mechanism seems a prudent and sensible step, and I endorse all that the hon. Gentleman said about choice.
  As I said, new clause 2 also illustrates the law of unintended consequences, because it would affect the post office network at the margin. You have rightly said, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we should not debate that issue and I shall not do so, but in answering the debate it is important for the Government to bear that helpful benefit in mind. The post office network is in crisis. Thousands of post offices are closing and anything that we can do to increase footfall in sub-post offices would be helpful. Although new clause 2 may be inspired by the desire to help the claimant, it would have a very useful side-effect that hon. Members must concentrate on and bear in mind when they vote. I hope that we will have the chance to vote on new clause 2, because I certainly wish to support it in the Lobby.
  New clause 2 also goes a long way towards addressing the issue of stigma, which has been thrown around, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) referred in his intervention. In 1998, Martin Taylor, author of the Government-commissioned report on work incentives, told the former Social Security Select Committee that there was no empirical evidence to suggest that the working families tax credit would have an effect on stigma. He said:
  "As far as stigma goes, the hard and fast evidence in all these non-financial and psychological matters is difficult to come by."
  The Government would be ill-advised to hang too much of their case on that point.
  The Government should also remember that a formidable alliance shares the view that we are right to be sceptical of the stigma claim. The National Council for One Parent Families, the CBI and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have all warned that the stigma attached to means-tested benefits could actually be increased by paying the credit through the payroll. In its document entitled "Credit Where it's Due", the Institute for Fiscal Studies says:
  "There is no evidence, though, that payment in this way improves work incentives or reduces stigma: the WFTC evaluation programme has not yet produced estimates of WFTC take-up or the impact on employment."

  1083
  It also suggests that
  "for some, payment through the wage packet has been perhaps more stigmatising and certainly more hassle than direct payment."
  I know that the words of the Institute for Fiscal Studies are always taken very seriously in the House.
  In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. In February, it published a report affirming that claimants should be given a free choice between direct payment and payment through their employer. The Paymaster General should also be concerned by NACAB reports of staff being dismissed as a result of their employers being forced to administer their claim for tax credits. I do not condone that behaviour. It is often the case that when we consider legislation we have to consider the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. Behaviour of that kind by employers is wrong and against the spirit of legislation, let alone their broader social responsibilities, but it is the inevitable consequence of a system like this one. The NACAB report states:
  "For many people, getting paid tax credit by their employer is simply not worth the trouble it can cause. Some employers consider the administrative burden too great for them to manage. In a small number of cases people have been sacked just for claiming tax credits. Other staff have pressure put on them to reduce their hours so they don't qualify, or are threatened with the sack."
  New clause 2 and its grouped amendments deal with two separate issues, both of great importance. The next group of amendments concerns the other important issue of fraud, and the House will wish to explore that at some length.
  The Minister must ask herself in all conscience whether she has got the balance of burdens on business and the social obligations of businesses in the wider community right. The amendments, which would relieve employers of some costs and exempt some employers from the provisions altogether, are the right measures because they will enhance employment and wealth throughout society. That is an issue with which she must always wrestle.
  The hon. Lady must be careful about relying on some of her well-rehearsed arguments on stigma and so forth. She should also consider the wider benefits of new clause 2—not only the benefits of choice that have been mentioned, but the wider social benefits of protecting the network of post offices. The new clause and the amendments have a huge amount to recommend them to the Government. I urge her to consider them sympathetically. If she has to reject them now, please will she reconsider them in another place?
  4 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: This has been an interesting debate, although much of the ground was covered in Committee, and it has centred on two issues. First, the new clause and the amendments would impose restrictions on the Inland Revenue board's powers to make payments both direct to the claimant and through the employer—the new clause and the amendments cover a number of issues to which I will return. Secondly, the amendments try to deal with the burdens on the employer.
  I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) for seeing small businesses thrive and grow. I remind him, however, that
  1084
  the working tax credit makes it possible for employers to draw on a wider pool of labour, as it enables more people to make the move into work and stay there. Employers also derive benefits from having employees in low-income households supported while they make that transition into work.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I will demonstrate that the amendments and new clauses tabled by the official Opposition today would restrict the choice of and increase the burdens on employers, which is the exact opposite of what they claimed they were trying to do.
  New clause 2 and amendment No. 15 attempt to impose an obligation on the Board of the Inland Revenue to make all direct payments of the new tax credits by order book through the post office. The amendment would restrict the manner in which payments could be made to that set out in the new clause. The new clause goes on to allow the board to make payments by automated credit transfer, but only through a "basic account", accessible at the post office and then only if the claimant has chosen that payment method.
  Let us be clear that the new clause would in effect offer the claimant no choice. Claimants would not have the choice of the payment going into their bank account, if they already had one. I am talking not about what the proposer of the amendment thinks he has done, but what he has done. The board cannot make emergency payments—
  Mr. Heath rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: The debate started at 2.50 pm and has been long. Many issues have been covered. I will be more than happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have made some progress.
  The new clause would allow the board to make payments by automated credit transfer, but only through the basic account accessible at the post office and then only if the claimant had chosen that method of payment.
  There was much discussion of the Post Office. Here, we are concerned only with the payment made. I remind hon. Members that the powers in the Bill are permissive powers for the Inland Revenue to determine how claimants will be paid and what choices they will have. I will be happy to deal with that subject after I have given way to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but first I must inform the hon. Member for Teignbridge that the classic problem for some Liberal Democrat Members seems to be accepting a principle, but not accepting the consequences of implementing it. I also remind him that the Liberal Democrats opposed the working families tax credit. While we are more than happy that they now think that the child tax credit is the way forward, they need to be careful as they venture into that territory.
  Mr. Heath: I do not understand the basis for the start of the Paymaster General's speech on this subject. She is claiming that the new clause and amendments would leave out the parts of the Bill that deal with alternative methods of payment, which they clearly would not. Furthermore, she interprets the word "entitlement" to mean a requirement on the Board of the Inland Revenue.

  1085
  I know of no construction that enables the word "entitlement" to be termed an instruction to the board, allowing no other means of payment. Perhaps the hon. Lady will elucidate.
  Dawn Primarolo: Indeed I will. The Bill gives authority to the board of the Inland Revenue to administer the new tax credits under its care and management functions. If the hon. Gentleman had been able to attend the Standing Committee—he was not a member—he would have heard some discussion of how those obligations interact with the Bill.
  With the exception of transfer into bank accounts, there is no statement in the Bill to list the precise ways in which the credit can be paid. As I said in Committee, the preferred option would be a direct transfer to a bank account—both individual's bank accounts and through the universal bank at the post office. I said that we needed to ensure that that payment was made. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is frustrated, but as he well knows, when one drafts an amendment one needs to know what is already in the Bill and where it cross-references.
  There is a second issue. The new clause would impose an obligation on employers to use the same payment methods as the board. I am sure that those who drafted it did not intend it to do that either. I understand the concern that the new clause is intended to deal with. Hon. Members are trying to ensure that claimants can collect their money from the post office, as they do now, and that they are not forced to use bank accounts if no suitable accounts are available. I explained in Committee that the amendments tabled there would not have delivered that end. I am now explaining that these amendments will not do so either.
  Hon. Members talked a lot about burdens on the employer. The new clause would impose an obligation on employers to make all working tax credit payments payable by them by order book or through suitable post office accounts. The working tax credit is paid by the employer. The payment goes from the board to the employer and then from the employer to the employee. The new clause would have that effect despite the fact that the employer would normally pay the employee's wages either in cash or into a bank account and that is what the employee expects. I find it hard to believe that the intention was to impose such a restriction, although the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that that is the case. I can assure him that the new clause would have such an effect.
  The main thrust of the new clause is to enable claimants to continue to receive payments by order book. That would limit the choice of payment methods already available to and used by benefits and tax credit claimants alike.
  My key objection to the new clause is that it would prevent claimants from receiving their payments by any method other than order book or through an account at the post office, even if they chose another payment method. It must be remembered that tax credits are paid to a broad range of families, many of whom already have bank accounts, are accustomed to using them and would expect to be able to continue to do so. Many other families will want to receive payments in that way. The new clause would prevent them from doing so.
  1086
  I made it clear in Committee that a move away from familiar payment methods must be accompanied by suitable alternative methods of payment for the most vulnerable members of society. As I said, the regulations to determine payment methods will deal with exactly that point. I was asked by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) whether the Prime Minister's commitment that people would still be able to collect cash from a post office via the universal bank would be an option. I confirmed that it would. Not only is the new clause unnecessary because the assurances have been given but should it be carried it would narrow choice and increase the burdens on employers, which hon. Members say they wish to reduce.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman but hon. Members have already said that they want to discuss at length other new clauses. I will give way but out of respect to the House I need to try to put on the record the answers to the questions that so many hon. Members have asked.
  Mr. Swire: It is true that many of the recipients of credits and benefits already have a bank account, but according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies extending the principle of tax credits to couples and individuals without children will bring an extra 250,000 single mothers and 170,000 working couples into the regulations. The IFS believes that in total almost 6 million households will receive some form of support. The number of people entitled to the benefits will rise by a large amount. Does the hon. Lady not concede that many of those people will not have, and will never have had, a bank account?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that we needed to provide choice and to ensure that other payment methods were available for those who had no access to bank accounts. Indeed when we discussed fraud in Committee, every Committee member accepted that the best way to minimise fraud and to ensure that the money went to the family or individual who was entitled to it was to have a secure payment method. We need to balance a secure payment method with ensuring access. That is what the regulations will provide for.
  As part of that—I said it in Committee—we are working closely with the Post Office and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that a suitable alternative will be available. The powers in the regulations are permissive ones designed to deliver that. The Bill provides the power to make the regulations on the manner of direct payment—that is all.
  If new clause 2 were part of the Bill, it would restrict entitlement. The new clause and amendment No. 15 would reduce freedom of choice at the same time as putting more burdens on businesses by requiring them to have two methods of payment: they will have to issue an order book, or pay into the post office account. That is clearly daft. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will agree to withdraw the new clause as it is fatally flawed.

  1087
  4.15 pm
  Amendment No. 13 attempts to impose a duty on employers to consult with employees to see whether they would prefer to receive their working tax credit directly from the board rather than through the payroll. It is supported by hon. Members who just a few minutes ago were complaining about burdens. Now they are saying that employers must consult their employees.
  What is interesting about the amendment is that it does not say what employers would have to do once they had consulted. Presumably, they would have to start printing order books, if it is linked to new clause 2.
  Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 are another attempt to raise the issue of burdens on employers, which we discussed at length in Committee and during debates on the Bill that preceded the Tax Credits Bill. Amendment No. 14 has the dual purpose of requiring the board to reimburse employers for the costs they incur in paying working tax credit to employees, and of exempting employers with 20 or fewer employees from paying the tax credit, whereas amendment No. 16 aims to exempt employers with fewer than 15 employees.
  As I pointed out in Committee, the Government are not attracted to that idea at all. The tax system does not provide for a direct subsidy or compensation to employers to fulfil their obligations in relation to tax. However, as I said at length in Committee—I will spare the House the long list—in a number of areas the Government have introduced reforms to reduce burdens, to simplify the operation of PAYE and to assist small businesses in particular. All that has been accepted and welcomed but ironically the amendments put more burdens on employers.
  Let us consider the proposal to reimburse employers. What do we reimburse them for? An employer may have 20 employees with only one receiving a tax credit. How do we calculate exactly how much compensation should be paid? What information would we have to ask the employer to give us, so that we could calculate the compensation?
  One amendment seeks to exempt employers with 20 or fewer employees and another those with 15 or fewer employees. I think that about 85 per cent. of employers are in businesses with 15 or fewer employees and 95 per cent. are in businesses with 20 or fewer employees. What would happen if a business had 16 employees and the exemption was for businesses with 15? Would it be asked to fill in loads of forms and send in loads of returns? Would it be sent loads more forms back? That would increase the burdens on that business. It has been demonstrated that paying the working tax credit through the wage packet will be simple. It supports the transition into work and assists employees and employers.
  The hon. Member for Mid—Worcestershire said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Opposition may have been full of good intentions but their amendments are a disaster. They are a disaster for claimants because they would restrict their choice and remove our ability to respond in an emergency by, for example, paying a claimant by giro. They would be an utter disaster for employers, who would have to consult, decide what to do, print order books, make arrangements with the Post Office in case that is where the claimant wanted the money to go, and let us know whether they had 14, 15, 16, 20 or 21 employees, depending on which bit of the system they came under.
  1088
  These are totally disruptive amendments, and I am happy to send a much longer explanation to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome of why his good intentions do not work. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the new clause and amendments because they are simply daft.
  Mr. Heath: Until latterly, we had rather a good debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Any debate which has the spokesman for the Conservative Opposition standing at the Dispatch Box and supporting collectivism and workplace ballots and expressing suspicion of the CBI shows that we live in a topsy-turvy world.
  I am grateful to all those who expressed opinions in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger—Ross) who did a good job describing the difficulties that small businesses will experience. The hon. Member for Mid—Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) talked about the law of unintended consequences and my new clause assisting post offices, but that was certainly not an unintended consequence. It was absolutely the intention of my new clause not only to extend choice but to protect the sub-post office system.
  What are we to make of the Minister's response? She said as her parting shot that she would write to me at length and I look forward to the letter with great expectations. Other than that, her argument seems to be a simple assertion: she does not like our amendments, so they are daft. She says that with all the authority of the Treasury Bench, and we know how desperately clever the Treasury is at producing briefings on these amendments. She says ex cathedra that because she does not like the new clause, she does not believe it to be sensible or that it will work.
  The Minister adduces an argument that the new clause would restrict payments only to those that could be made through a sub-post office and that it would restrict choice. I have looked again at the Bill. I see no change to clause 23 other than the paving amendment which we propose to allow for new clause 2. I see no change to clause 24 which provides the powers that she says are now curtailed. The new clause provides only an entitlement to receive the cash over the counter in a post office. That seems a perfectly sensible and proper proposal.
  The Minister asserts, secondly, that the universal bank will be in operation in April 2003. I desperately hope she is right, but I am sick and tired of hearing Ministers assert with no evidence that the development of the universal bank is anything like at the stage it should be if it is go live in April 2003. If it is not, the mechanisms in the Bill will be inadequate and the Minister has no plan B. That may be of no great concern to the Government or the Inland Revenue, but it is of enormous concern to people who need that facility through their post office and to those who are trying to make their businesses in those post offices work, but who will not have the income they desperately need to maintain the network.
  For those reasons I reject the Government's simple assertions and seek the advice of the House on the merits of new clause 2.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 252.

  Division No. 164]

  [4.23 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Amess, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Heath, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hendry, Charles

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hermon, Lady

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hoban, Mark

  Bacon, Richard

  Holmes, Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Horam, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Baron, John

  Key, Robert

  Barrett, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Beggs, Roy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Laws, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brady, Graham

  Lidington, David

  Brake, Tom

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Loughton, Tim

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Luff, Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Burnside, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Malins, Humfrey

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Maples, John

  Cameron, David

  Mates, Michael

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mercer, Patrick

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cash, William

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Chidgey, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Chope, Christopher

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Page, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Paice, James

  Cotter, Brian

  Paterson, Owen

  Cran, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Price, Adam

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Prisk, Mark

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Pugh, Dr John

  Doughty, Sue

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Robathan, Andrew

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Flook, Adrian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Ruffley, David

  Gale, Roger

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  Salmond, Alex

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gibb, Nick

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gidley, Sandra

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

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Goodman, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grayling, Chris

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spink, Bob

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hammond, Philip

  Swire, Hugo

  Harvey, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  1090

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willetts, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Trend, Michael

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Willis, Phil

  Tyler, Paul

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Walter, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Watkinson, Angela

  Webb, Steve

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Weir, Michael

  John Thurso and

  Whittingdale, John

  Richard Younger-Ross.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  David, Wayne

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Baird, Vera

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barnes, Harry

  Dobbin, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Battle, John

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Benn, Hilary

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Edwards, Huw

  Berry, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blackman, Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  Blizzard, Bob

  Farrelly, Paul

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Borrow, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  1091

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hurst, Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Joyce, Eric

  Rooney, Terry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ruddock, Joan

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ryan, Joan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Kemp, Fraser

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sawford, Phil

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Shaw, Jonathan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lammy, David,

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Lepper, David

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Levitt, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Southworth, Helen

  Lloyd, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Love, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Luke, Iain

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Lyons, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  McCabe, Stephen

  Stringer, Graham

  McCafferty, Chris

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  McDonnell, John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  MacDougall, John

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Timms, Stephen

  McKechin, Ann

  Todd, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  McNulty, Tony

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Tynan, Bill

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Martlew, Eric

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Merron, Gillian

  Watts, David

  Miliband, David

  White, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wills, Michael

  Moran, Margaret

  Winnick, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Woolas, Phil

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Worthington, Tony

  Norris, Dan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wyatt, Derek

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Perham, Linda

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Pike, Peter

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Tom Brake: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that at 3.30 pm today a press release was issued, announcing that the Government were to proceed with the public-private partnership for the London underground. Is that not a contempt of the House, given that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is due to make a statement at 7 o'clock this evening?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that what he says is correct: Mr. Speaker has agreed to a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at 7 pm this evening.

New Clause 6

  AGGRAVATED TAX CREDIT FRAUD
  '(1) A person is guilty of aggravated tax credit fraud if he is knowingly concerned in any fraudulent activity undertaken with a view to obtaining payments of a tax credit by him or any other person and—

  (a) tax credits have been fraudulently obtained by himself or another in excess of the prescribed sum; or

  (b) he has been convicted of an offence under the provisions of this Act or a benefit offence as defined by section 7 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 within the preceding five years.

  (2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both, or

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or a fine, or both.

  (3) Regulations may make provision as to the prescribed sum in subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. James Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 23.
  Amendment No. 3, in clause 33, page 21, line 40, at end insert—
  '(3) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this section coming into effect and every year thereafter lay a report before Parliament on—

  (a) the extent of fraud in claims for tax credits, and

  (b) the measures he has taken to deal with fraudulent claims for tax credits, including measures to facilitate the early detection and prevention of such fraud.'.

  Amendment (a) thereto, in line 3, after "credits", insert—
  ', including the estimated extent of fraud as a proportion of all error in such claims,'.
  Mr. Clappison: I shall briefly consider Government amendment No. 23 first, as it deals with a subject that is slightly different from the provisions on non-compliance. We welcome the amendment and we are grateful to the Paymaster General for writing to us about it. The change in the wording of clause 31 will be advantageous and fairer to employers, especially small employers. I ask the

  1093
  indulgence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the House in permitting us modestly to claim some small credit for bringing that about by raising the issue in previous debates.
  In Committee, we drew attention to what would have been a significant tightening-up of the provisions, which would have been a considerable imposition on employers. Following that scrutiny, it emerged that the situation that would have prevailed had the Bill been passed unamended would have been even worse than we originally thought. That point was disclosed in a letter from the Financial Secretary.
  When we originally raised the issue, we were worried that the clause would extend liability for innocent errors made by employers—acts and omissions on their part—that were neither fraudulent nor negligent but that would have resulted in the imposition of penalties on employers. In the letter, it is revealed that it would have been even worse than that, because the liability would have gone further.
  The Financial Secretary wrote that the clause
  "would allow a penalty to be imposed on an employer even if the incorrect payment of tax credit was attributable to an innocent error on the part of the employer or for some other reason outside the employer's control."
  That means, quite simply, that an employer could have faced a significant penalty—a particularly significant penalty for a small employer—for something that had nothing to do with him and that was the result of someone else's actions. That would have been a serious state of affairs. Government amendment No. 23 puts it right, and we welcome it.
  However, we add this sentiment, which is apt in the circumstances. It is a pity that we could not have extended to the rest of the Bill the detailed scrutiny that we were giving to the parts that were considered in Committee, to discover what other pitfalls there may have been. The Government amendment has emerged as a result of that scrutiny. We can only express the hope that there are no more pitfalls awaiting small employers or anyone else.
  I now come to the meat of this group of amendments and the new clause: fraud. We believe that fraud within the tax credit system is a serious issue, and that the starting point for that issue is a proper assessment of the extent of fraud in the existing tax credit system. Quite simply, we need to know how much fraud there is within tax credits.
  We have been asking that question for some time and, sadly, we are no closer to receiving a straightforward answer from the Government today than we were when we began asking the question. We would like to know, for example, whether the Government themselves know how much fraud there is. If they do, will they tell the House?
  I asked the Paymaster General that question in March 2001, during a debate on the uprating of tax credits. She kindly agreed to write to me and she was as good as her word. She wrote in April 2001 and told me:
  "The Inland Revenue are carrying out a benchmarking exercise to establish the level of fraud in tax credit claims. This began in September 2000 and will run for twelve months. The results will be used to ensure tax credits compliance work is carried out in the most effective way."
  Taking the Paymaster General at her word, on 15 October I tabled a parliamentary question, to ask what assessment Ministers had made of the extent of fraud.
  1094
  I received a reply in a written answer on 18 December. You might think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that from 15 October to 18 December was a rather long time to wait for a written answer, but I was treated better than the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), because the answer that I eventually received was grouped with a question that he had originally asked back on 28 June, on much the same subject. Anyway, this is what I and the right hon. Gentleman were told on 18 December:
  "The Inland Revenue is currently undertaking an exercise to benchmark the level of fraud within the working families tax credit. The full results of this will be known early next year."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 323–24W.]
  Well, here we are, early next year as it was then, and in Committee we had the opportunity to ask—at an appropriate time, it would seem—about fraud. We asked the same question, but without any greater success in getting an answer. We have been mulling over what the Paymaster General said in Committee:
  "On the benchmarking report, I told the hon. Member for Hertsmere that the Inland Revenue are considering the details and a report will come to me. It is already using that information to inform people about the new provisions. I cannot give him a guarantee that I will be able to publish that information because it deals with specifics of possible frauds that it would be unwise to put in the public domain. However, I will consider how to ensure that he is properly informed so that he can discharge his parliamentary duties."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 January 2002; c. 239.]
  Since then I have asked a further parliamentary question. I know that the Government like to control everything these days, but I would like to be the judge of how I discharge my parliamentary duties and I am afraid that the answer I have received from the Government does not enable me or anyone else to discharge their parliamentary duties. I was told:
  "The Inland Revenue are currently analysing the data from their compliance benchmarking exercise. We shall be considering the results, and questions of publication, within the next few months."—[Official Report, 5 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 851W.]
  I have been asking the same question for roughly a year. I have been taken through to the time when the Inland Revenue exercise concluded, at the end of September. We were no wiser at the end of that. We were no wiser as a result of asking the parliamentary question in December 2001. We were no wiser after the Committee, and we are no wiser after this most recent written answer. I do look to the Financial Secretary for an answer today.
  Given the speed with which the Government are changing the tax credits system and the way in which new tax credits are constantly emerging, I am very worried that this tax credit will be abolished before we have the chance to know how much fraud there was in it. We shall move on to the next tax credit and we shall be told about that, that the Government are conducting a benchmarking exercise and it is too early to say what its results are. We need to know today from the Financial Secretary.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend has set out a sorry tale of delays and prevarication by the Government. Might he perhaps be tempted to explain to us why he thinks that the Government may have prevaricated in providing that information to the House to enable hon. Members to make a judgment as to the extent of fraud in that system?
  Mr. Clappison: A variety of explanations were put forward in Committee, but my hon. Friend assumes in his question that the Government themselves know, so it would be good to have a straightforward answer from the Financial Secretary whether he knows the outcome of the benchmarking exercise carried out by the Inland Revenue. Does he know how much fraud there is in the working families tax credit?
  If the Financial Secretary does know, would he tell us whether he will kindly put that figure in the public domain? I am not asking him to clarify what was said in Committee by the Paymaster General. To summarise, she said that the Government were afraid of encouraging people to commit fraud by giving away too many details. Well, we are not asking how to commit fraud. We are not asking for details like that. We are simply asking how much fraud there is. If it is the Minister's argument that it would be dangerous to say how much fraud there is, that in itself would be a very strong temptation to people to commit fraud if they heard something like that coming from the Government. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of the invulnerability of tax credits to fraud.
  The same argument has not applied to fraud in the benefits system. At the most recent Work and Pensions questions we were told by the Secretary of State himself, I believe, how important it was to know how much fraud there was in the benefits system. The same considerations apply to the Tax Credits Bill, so today we are looking to the Financial Secretary to give us some straightforward answers to straightforward questions.
  Knowing how much fraud takes place is very important, but that is only a starting point; it is also important to find out what is being done about it. That brings me to amendment No. 3, in which we propose that we have a report every year on the extent of tax credit fraud, so that we know what is happening. We would have a starting point—we would know how much fraud there was to begin with. We would know what measures were being taken to deal with it and, as a result of that report, we would know each year what progress was being made in dealing with fraud.
  The Government said in the 1998 Green Paper on fraud that that scenario would be desirable. They said it is important to have better information about the extent of fraud and then to discover what is being done about it. In Committee, the Paymaster General told us that early detection is important to stop abuses that may arise in the system. We agree with her, so that would be specifically required under amendment No. 3, which, we hope, will find favour with the Financial Secretary for that reason.
  We believe that much more can be done. In Committee, we explained how we would like tax credit fraud to be tackled. We would like better co-ordination between Departments and between local and central Government, greater co-operation between the public and the private sectors and as much involvement from the public as possible in providing information. We welcome the fact that there has been a significant public response to the benefit fraud hotline.
  I was told in a parliamentary answer last week that the public had communicated to the Inland Revenue, through the benefit fraud hotline, 16,676 allegations of improper applications for the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. We welcome that public-spirited co-operation from people who share our
  1096
  concern that fraud should be dealt with effectively. I do not know how the public would respond to what the Government have done in relation to that public willingness and spirit of co-operation.
  Mr. Swire: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clappison: I shall give way, but my hon. Friend may want to ponder on the statistics showing what the Government have done. We have heard what the public have done—they have made more than 16.000 allegations. However, I was told, by way of a written parliamentary answer, that there were 530 recoveries—presumably, recoveries of incorrect payments—18 penalties, which are financial penalties, and 2 prosecutions, even though 16,676 allegations were made to the hotline.
  Mr. Swire: In developing that theme, I wonder whether part of the problem is that those who run the fraud hotline do not feel that they are given enough support. I suggest that because I have a letter from my constituent, Julie Embling of the Acorn kindergarten in Exmouth, Devon—I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), in November asking for a reply, but I have yet to receive one—who maintains that, in running her small private school, she is owed about £2,000 a year by people claiming the working families tax credit who do not pay it on to her. She spoke to someone at the fraud hotline about her recurring problems and was told that child minders, nurseries and pre-schools are suffering financially from that nationwide problem. Those at the hotline suggested that she write to me as her Member of Parliament to try to persuade the Government to change the laws on the working families tax credit.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am sure that his constituent will be as interested as we are in the consequences of these proposals. She will also have in mind the recent experience of fraud involving individual learning accounts. Innocent providers lost out under that system, as did the people who were innocently trying to obtain education and training, because of the disruption caused when it was suddenly discovered that large-scale fraud was taking place and the Government had to bring the system to an ignominious halt. We are trying to prevent something similar happening again by having a thorough and proper debate on fraud.
  We are not impressed by the number of prosecutions for working families tax credit fraud. We do not suggest that that is the only way to tackle fraud, but we would like people who knowingly commit fraud, especially those who commit the most determined fraud—I shall deal with that in speaking to new clause 6—to be prosecuted for a serious criminal offence. We suspect that many people who could be prosecuted are not being prosecuted.
  Altogether, in the two years that the working families tax credit has operated, there have been only 28 prosecutions. There has been a recent spurt in the number of prosecutions—it may be entirely coincidental that questions have been asked about that—but the figure is still low in relation to the size of the system, the number of people claiming and the amount of fraud in other parts of the benefits system. I emphasise that we, like members of the public, are interested in prosecuting people who commit serious fraud and in dealing with them severely.

  1097
  New clause 6 is designed to create an offence of aggravated tax credit fraud for those who repeatedly commit fraud or obtain large sums. Those determined fraudsters need to be dealt with more seriously. We need to decide how best to protect the interests of taxpayers and the majority of tax credit claimants who are honest and who also believe that the fraud is unacceptable. They want us to get to the people who commit serious frauds to obtain a large amount of money or who defraud the state again and again.
  Treating such offences more seriously would be in line with what the Government are trying to do in other parts of the benefits system. The Social Security Fraud Act 2001 tackles fraud in other benefits. It received Opposition support and removes benefits from people who are repeatedly convicted of offences. There is a widespread desire to ensure that those who commit the most serious frauds are dealt with more strictly.
  We have asked many questions about fraud and want straightforward answers. It is time that the Government came clean. They should tell us what the level of fraud is and set out more clearly what they intend to do about it. We will continue to press for answers.
  Mr. Webb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on his assiduous studying of the Bill in Committee which led to the correction set out in Government amendment No. 23. I wholeheartedly associate myself with his comment that large chunks of it were not scrutinised because of the tight timetable. It would be regrettable if other aspects of the Bill were not picked up on. I hope that the Government take a lesson from that the next time they programme our discussions. They should realise that it is in their interests to have proper scrutiny. Indeed, we would all benefit in such circumstances.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman says that that would be in the Government's interests, but would it not be in the taxpayers' interests?
  Mr. Webb: This is a win-win situation. It is in all our interests that there is proper scrutiny. However, the Government's reputation for producing good legislation is damaged if Bills are not properly scrutinised and have to be corrected later on. So I welcome Government amendment No. 23 and the process by which it came about.
  I also welcome the suggestion in amendment No. 3 and amendment (a) that there should be annual reports on the extent of fraud, what is being done about it and how it contributes to the total error in claims. My slight hesitation is that a detailed exposition of what is being done to tackle fraud might show our hand too much, but the request for information on the scale of fraud and the overall progress in tackling it would be welcome.
  I will be interested to hear the Financial Secretary's response to new clause 6. We all agree that fraud is a bad thing and that repeated or large-scale fraud is even worse. There is only one question, therefore: what is the appropriate penalty? When my colleagues and I ask whether a proposed penalty, of whatever magnitude, is not serious enough or too serious, it is sometimes suggested that we either approve of the crime or are not tough enough. We want such crime punished properly,
  1098
  but does new clause 6 set out the right punishment? The hon. Member for Hertsmere did not try to justify the specific tariff or degree of severity that it sets out, which is why I have an open mind about whether to support it.
  5 pm
  My instinct is to be slightly nervous of the severity of the proposal. I do not understand the legal system enough to understand the precise implications of new clause 6(2)(b) and its reference to conviction on indictment. However,
  "imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years"
  strikes me as an extraordinarily long period.
  We have a scale of relative importance of different offences. To draw an analogy with recent news items, it was suggested that those who take mobile phones off people in the street should face four years, or something like that, in the slammer; at that point, someone came on the radio and said, "But something much more serious was done to me, and the person who did it only got 18 months." No one disagrees that the act is wrong; the question is where it fits into the scale of seriousness of offences and penalties.
  Mr. Clappison: I am listening with great interest to the important points that the hon. Gentleman is making. The purpose of setting a maximum sentence is to cater for the worst type of offences. The new clause is in effect saying that offences with such aggravating features are the more serious type of offences.
  It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know the current state of affairs regarding those who have already been prosecuted for working families tax credit fraud—an offence that currently attracts possible imprisonment. Only seven people have been sent to prison for such offences, and a written answer that I received suggests that some of those people may also have been involved in offences of another type.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that intervention, and I understand that we see only the maximum in the new clause. However, I cannot help reflecting on a dreadful constituency case in which a teenager was murdered and the murderer was given 12 years. I find it hard to understand the relative figures when it is suggested that a fraudster—even a serious tax credit fraudster—should be given 14 years. That is not to say that the offences are not serious, or that the sentences are not serious enough. I just wonder about their relative position in the scale of penalties for offences.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. We all agree that tax credit fraud should be cracked down on, but, in passing, I observe that the proposals about not putting the money through the pay packet would have worked well in the context of the current group of amendments. The ability to pass money through the books of a firm is an open invitation to fraud if the firm wants to collude with its employees. Direct payments to the individual are far less prone to organised fraud of that sort.
  I welcome the fact that the Conservative amendments turn the focus to fraud. Regular reports to Parliament would be welcome, but I have some reservations about the extent of the penalties proposed in new clause 6.
  Mr. David Ruffley: I support new clause 6. It is necessary because the regime to be introduced by the Bill will make fraud easier than it is under the system to be replaced.
  In 1999, the Select Committee on Social Security said that there were
  "serious concerns … about the increased potential for fraud in Working Families Tax Credit as compared to Family Credit."
  That Committee suggested, and I agree, that a straightforward benefits system was less susceptible to fraud than a tax credit system. I venture to suggest that one of the reasons why the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about the level of fraud under working families tax credit have not been answered is that those answers would reveal a higher incidence of fraud under the tax credit system than under the family credit system that it replaced.
  Why should that be embarrassing to the Government? The answer is not far to seek: the working families tax credit system and the tax credit system to follow from the Bill was an idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Treasury. The system is manifestly not only more complicated, but more susceptible to fraud.
  The questions that I have posed about increased susceptibility to fraud have been borne out by international experience across the Atlantic. The Canadian working income supplement, a tax credit system not unlike the one that the Bill seeks to introduce, has been a disaster. It has resulted in increased fraud and has led the Canadian authorities to the inescapable conclusion that they should scrap it and return to a benefit-based system. Equally, in the United States, the Internal Revenue Service is beside itself at the amount of fraud perpetrated under the earned income tax credit system, which is the key model for the Treasury's working tax credit and, before that, the working families tax credit. The figures speak for themselves. In early 1997, the taxpayers of America lost more than $4.4 billion as a result of fraud in the earned income tax credit system, mainly because of poor certification—in fact, it is virtually non-existent—of hours worked in employment. The Economist observed:
  "There is no longer a consensus that the earned income tax credit is a sensible addition to America's anti-poverty programmes."
  New clause 6 has a clear intention; it will introduce serious penalties for aggravated fraud. The system that the Bill will introduce provides more scope for the fraudster, chiefly because of the annual basis of assessment, which contrasts with the much shorter periods required for income support and the six-month assessment period for working families tax credit. If a claim is made before the beginning of a tax year for the following tax year, the claimant may have to calculate in his annual assessment what he thinks his income will be for the next 12 months. If there is a change in his circumstances, that will not be assessed automatically before the 12-month period is up.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that that is self-evidently loopy, as there is no comparable system in any other benefit regime; it does not think that such a period of assessment has previously been introduced without serious reassessment of the claimant's benefit within 12 months. From the Bill, it is clear that the Government seek to get round that by arguing that if there is a change in someone's circumstances, their case could be reopened. If someone gets a lot more money during the year, there will be a reassessment of the amount of
  1100
  benefit that they receive. However, within certain thresholds, the Government will choose to ignore any change in circumstances. We are told that there will be a threshold above which certain amounts of increased income will be ignored by the authorities, thus leading demonstrably to overpayment. That is what the disregard in the threshold means; someone will get more benefit under the new system than they otherwise would.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinks that that is a bit peculiar, but it becomes even more peculiar when we realise that we have not been told what the threshold is. Extraordinarily, all that we are told is that thresholds will be set by regulation; we do not know how much increased income will be disregarded or, in other words, constitute a benefit overpayment. In those circumstances, there is considerable potential for fraud. It may be argued that there will be powers to seek repayment of overpaid benefit at the end of the tax year, but that overpayment has to be detected. I know that my hon. Friends did sturdy work in Committee, questioning the ability of the authorities to get repayments made when overpayments have occurred in year.
  At the beginning of a tax year, when information is given to the Inland Revenue about future income for the next 12 months, there is an in-built incentive to underestimate the amount forecast by the taxpayer. An answer to that conundrum has not been forthcoming from the Government and still causes great concern to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  What about the ability of the Inland Revenue—not the Department for Work and Pensions any more—to police the new regime that the Bill seeks to introduce? I reiterate the powerful points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, because I fear that Ministers on the Treasury Bench may try to wriggle out of the question. In the letter that the Paymaster General placed in the Library, she stated:
  "The Inland Revenue are carrying out a benchmarking exercise to establish the level of fraud in tax credit claims. This began in September 2000 and will run for 12 months. The results will be used to ensure tax credits compliance work is carried out in the most effective way."
  What is the number of cases that have given rise to criminal proceedings as a result of that study?
  That is a perfectly simple question. I hope that we will get an answer. During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, the Parliamentary Private Secretary scuttled no less than twice to the Box to get bits of paper. Much agitation was evident. I sincerely hope that the Financial Secretary has done his homework and that he will provide an answer to a question that was raised in Standing Committee—an answer that has been asked for twice, including my questioning now, in the Chamber today. It should not be terribly difficult, and it should be something that we have a right to know.
  The Financial Secretary may smirk away. Someone once said of his general performance:
  "We have seen the future; and it smirks",
  which, I think, is a variation on a quote from the Webbs. The right hon. Gentleman should not smirk. He may congratulate me on what he considers to be an amusing joke. I find it not so much amusing as worrying that he can laugh about a taxpayer issue. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that it is the taxpayer who

  1101
  is losing out as a result of fraud, and I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the taxpayer deserves some answers today.
  The Government have the technology to calculate the number of cases that have been caught and the number of criminal proceedings that have been brought. We know that the Government can have access to that information because in her letter on 11 April 2001, which is deposited in the House of Commons Library, the Paymaster General tells us that between April 2000 and February 2001 approximately 29,000 working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit investigations were completed, and about 300 penalties were imposed. If she can find the information for that period, why on earth can she not find it for the 12-month period about which she promised to tell us? Those facts need to be put on the record by Ministers today.
  I try not to think too ill of my fellow man, in the inclusive Conservative party that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has done so much to influence over the past few weeks. I do not want to resort to cheap rhetoric about benefit frauds, cheats and scroungers. We are seeking as a party to condemn a little less and understand a little more. So I want to be very gentle in making my point: I think that it is highly unlikely that the number of serious fraud cases that relate to working families tax credit and in which penalties are justified amounts to only 300 in one year. That is the number given in the Paymaster General's figures, but it seems remarkably low, so I repeat that we need the figures that she undertook to give to us.
  In conclusion, I should like to make a more general point about fraud, not least in relation to that which is endemic as a result of having a tax credit system, as opposed to a straightforward benefit system and family credit. Apart from housing benefit, the two most vulnerable benefits in terms of fraud are jobseeker's allowance and income support, which are both folded into the working tax credit and child tax credit that are at the core of the Bill. On 20 December 1999, Lord Rooker, the then Minister of State, Department of Social Security, told the House something very interesting. He said:
  "Previous estimates have shown that £2 billion a year has definitely been lost through fraud. A further £3 billion may have been lost in cases where fraud is strongly suspected".
  On top of that lot, he referred to
  "a further £2 billion where there is some suspicion of fraud."—[Official Report, 20 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 323W.]
  Those figures have been estimated to be somewhat on the low side, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) when he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. That estimable Committee suggested that, in total, social security fraud cost the average family about £500 a year. That is the scale and magnitude of the problem with which the Government have to grapple. Of course, the predecessor Administration also had to grapple with it. However, this Bill seems to encourage a lax culture in terms of application for the two credits. There is the disregard of increases in income, about which the authorities are saying "Don't worry about that, we'll overpay you." A new regime is being introduced in which the arrangements are more complicated and it will be more difficult for people to get the right answers. It will, therefore, give fraudsters more scope to try things on and
  1102
  claim that they were confused—a point that has been rather sagely made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. For those reasons, as well as that which has already been mentioned—the secrecy with which Ministers are treating the information about the level of fraud in working families tax credit and tax credits in general—I urge the House to support the new clause and the associated amendments tabled by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Frank Field: I rise to speak to the amendments in the group to which I have appended my name. I do so for one very simple reason: when the Opposition were in government, they were, at least in my view, open to the charge of being soft on fraud and soft on the causes of fraud. I hope that those on the Front Bench will accept the amendments, as I would not want us to go into an election with that charge not only being pinned to us, but being widely believed by the electorate.
  I want to support my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and again emphasise to the House the difficulties that he has in trying to ensure that the civil service machine is as effective as we want it to be in countering fraud. It is not part of my normal behaviour to attack civil servants either generally or individually, but I can say that the main culprits are not in the Box tonight and that I am thinking about the generalities and not about individuals.
  Two examples might suggest that the machinery supporting the Government is not as anxious to counter fraud, or to take notice of the will of the House, as it should be. I have already cited the first example. I had responsibility for fraud for about 13 weeks, and decided that we should undertake an inquiry into the patterns of fraud in family credit. That information would be made known to the Treasury so that when it came to plan the working families tax credit, it could at least design out of the new benefit the easy means to fraud that were present in the family credit system. As is known, a successor Minister has told the House that the papers carrying my decision have gone missing. That hardly suggests that there is mega-support in some Departments for countering fraud.
  The second example has also been cited. Attempts to get information about the extent of fraud through a parliamentary question tabled in my name took six months to elicit a reply. Again, that hardly suggests a group of people actively engaged in trying to protect taxpayers' money. I emphasise that point because we are not talking about our money. We are talking about a large number of people, many of whom earn low wages, who pay their taxes because they believe that they should. We have an equal duty to ensure that the money raised from those people, whether rich or poor, is spent in the way in which the House requires.
  If we are casual with that responsibility, in the long run there will be even less support in the House for welfare measures than there is at the moment. So, if we cannot do this for the proper reason, we should do it for another reason—namely, because those of us who are interested in ensuring that those at the bottom of the pile get a slightly better deal than they would if there were no Government intervention want those programmes to be protected.
  Mr. Clappison: Just before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from that point, it is worth bearing in mind the answer that he received to his parliamentary question. It stated that
  "it is not possible to answer specific questions about the proportion of the Inland Revenue's compliance costs that relate to Tax Credits."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 324W.]
  It took the machinery that he has described six months to tell him that it did not know the answer.
  Mr. Field: I hate to say this, but the Treasury looks good in this regard compared with the Department for Work and Pensions. I recently received a reply to a letter that I had sent to that Department nine months earlier. It had a "roller-towel" answer similar to the one to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. All this suggests that, despite the Government's wish to counter fraud, that wish is not being backed up with resolute action by all civil servants. For the reasons that I have briefly outlined, therefore, I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury comes to reply, he will not surprise the House or taxpayers, and that he will express the Government's intention to adopt the amendments.
  Mr. Mark Field rose—
  Mr. Frank Field: I give way to my namesake.
  Mr. Mark Field: I thank the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I should call him my right hon. kinsman. He has made a thoughtful contribution detailing some of the intrinsic problems that the Department faced when he was a Minister. Does he not feel, however, that an openness to fraud will inevitably be endemic in the system of tax credits? That system has been born out of a desire to push the burden of costs on to business, rather than keeping it with the Government.
  Mr. Frank Field: I believe that there would still be fraud if we were operating the tax credit system in the Garden of Eden, given how easy it is to commit fraud. Hence the amendments, which are trying to send a police force into the Garden of Eden to do a bit of handiwork on the taxpayer's behalf. That is yet another reason to accept them.
  I shall end on the note on which I began. In the run-up to the 1997 election, the party to which I belong was able to seize the initiative in countering fraud. Taxpayers thought that the Conservative party had totally failed to live up to its responsibilities to protect taxpayers' money. My worry is that if we are not seen to act ever diligently in protecting taxpayer's money, the charge made against the last Conservative Government—that they were soft on fraud and soft on the causes of fraud—will be made against us.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will deliver a robust response. Despite his difficulties in bringing some civil servants to heel in implementing the wishes of the House, I hope that we take an important step forward in protecting taxpayer's money and in tilting the balance towards decent citizens and against those citizens who rip us off.
  Mr. Flight: The Government's approach contains a genuine flaw. They have understandably chosen a system
  1104
  that prioritises giving people credits as they need them. That system is extremely complex. Indeed, the Financial Secretary said in Committee that it would be like a television set—people would not understand how it worked, but they would turn the knob on and off. We should consider those two points together.
  The word "fraud" may be wrong, but human nature is human nature, and, inevitably, those who qualify for tax credits will develop and understand ways in which to play the system. People will work out what cannot be checked effectively or will not be checked at all. Currently, there is a marked lack of discipline in the system, and I can understand why the Government are not keen on the kind of disciplinary measures that might tighten it up. For instance, all claimants might be required to produce a detailed annual return for the Revenue, answering all the key questions about their circumstances. That would circumvent the easy argument, "I didn't really know that I had to give that bit of information, and I didn't understand." The reply to that is, "How could you? It is a very complex matter."
  Alternatively, the Revenue might have to check working hours with employers. That would not solve the problem in relation to the self-employed, but, again, checking with employers, whatever formula the Government apply in relation to average working hours, would be an enormous task and yet another burden on employers. The nature of the arrangement will encourage laxity, wheezes and playing the system—not major fraud, but a culture of fraud. We have seen such things in other areas of national life. When the Government are using the taxes and money of those who are not well-off and of others, they cannot afford to have their cake and eat it. If they are to introduce a negative income tax credits system, they must also apply the disciplines that go with it.
  As other hon. Members have argued, two outcomes resulted from a similar system in the United States, on which much of the Government's approach is modelled. First, costs spiralled from, I think, $1.6 billion to more than $18 billion in a decade. Secondly, some 25 per cent. of the claims turned out to be invalid. As the Bill stands, we shall go down that road. Are the Government prepared to introduce the disciplines needed to prevent the same thing from happening here?
  Mr. Hoban: I do not wish to add a great deal more, but I want to put on record part of the debate in Committee on the message that the Government are sending out on working families tax credit fraud. I also want to explain the importance of the new clause and the amendments grouped with it, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
  In a parliamentary answer covering the period from October 1999 to September 2001, it was identified that there were 52,000 investigations into working families tax credit claims, of which 8,800 resulted in recovery of an overpayment. There were 478 penalties for over-claiming, but only 22 prosecutions, of which 13 were successful. My concern is that, with so few prosecutions following so many recoveries and penalties, the message to the perpetrators was that, to echo the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Government were soft on fraud and soft on the causes of fraud. That can only encourage fraudsters to commit further fraud, which is why I support the new offence of aggravated tax relief fraud. It is important to demonstrate that there is a stiff sanction.

  1105
  5.30 pm
  It is also important, as in amendment No. 3 and amendment (a), to stress that the Government should be held to account by Parliament for the extent of fraud in the system and made to say, without giving the game away to the fraudsters, what measures they are taking to ensure that fraud is reduced. We must send out a clear message to the fraudsters, and I am afraid that the Government's track record, with so few prosecutions following so many false claims, sends out quite the wrong message.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This worthwhile and thoughtful debate has demonstrated the seriousness with which the whole House takes the issue of fraud. I assure the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that the Government are determined to tackle it wherever and in whatever aspect of the tax and/or benefit system it appears.
  I entirely reject the accusation—it was not only implicit but explicit in some contributions today—that we are not committed to tackling non-compliance in the tax credit system: we are, and I would argue that the measures in the Bill demonstrate that. The notion that the people who are responsible for administering the tax and tax credits system would glean from what some hon. Members have said today is that the House questions their seriousness of intent, which would be disappointing for a body of men and women engaged in a difficult and problematic field of enforcement.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) clearly appreciates the balance that must be struck, whereby we need to be committed not only to deterring, detecting and reversing non-compliance but to encouraging people to take up what is rightfully theirs.
  My right hon. Friend has championed that cause for many years, which distinguishes his criticisms and concerns from those of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who, in an interesting reference to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), demonstrated that the distance between Kensington and Chelsea and Bury St. Edmunds is more than geographical.
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, I have not finished.
  The attempts by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea and his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to change the face of the Conservative party are likely to take a long time. I heard the points that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made, and I will deal with them later.
  Mr. Ruffley: On a point of information, I must tell the Minister that my reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) was supportive; I agree with his injunction that our party should be more inclusive. The Minister entirely misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
  Mr. Boateng: If what the hon. Gentleman said earlier was supposed to be supportive, I hope that I never have to rely on his support.
  1106
  A delicate balance has to be struck. If the hon. Gentleman is being supportive, I hope that he will have the grace to recognise that we need to get the balance right. There is a balance between helping the compliant majority to claim and to understand both what they are entitled to and their obligations under the system—because with rights come responsibilities—and having effective remedies against those who try to abuse the system.
  There undoubtedly are people who abuse the system—we all come across them from time to time in our constituency surgeries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and I share a common approach to theology, and we both accept that man is fallen—so, as he suggested, we will not have the opportunity to observe what would happen if the measure were enforced in the Garden of Eden. We operate in an entirely different place, and our laws must reflect the nature of that place.
  Mr. Frank Field: Given the nature of the Bill, how it operates, and who is responsible for membership, will not the overwhelming majority of the fallen creatures be employers?
  Mr. Boateng: I am not sure that I accept that. There are a lot of fallen folk about, and I do not think that they are to be found in any one place or category. Even among ourselves I fear that there are some—on both sides of the House. We have to live with that fact, but our laws also have to reflect not only the reality of human nature but our need to get the balance right.
  We had the opportunity to examine this issue at length in Committee, and I am rather surprised by some of the suggestions that have been made about the Bill. For example, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) would welcome the fact that we recognise the merits of his amendment and the points that he made so ably in Committee. However, he seemed a little churlish—
  Mr. Flight: Surely not.
  Mr. Boateng: I fear so, although it was uncharacteristic. It was churlish of the hon. Gentleman to chide us for tabling our amendment. We recognised the force of his case, and I find it rather surprising that he suggests that simply because we tabled our own amendment, there may be other hidden horrors lurking in the Bill, as yet unrecognised because there has not been enough time for consideration. I would say that we gave the Bill very thorough consideration in Committee, just as we have done tonight.
  Be that as it may, I would argue that aspects of the new tax credits make the system intrinsically more secure. The measure of income used is the income for a tax year, which is defined much more closely in line with tax, reducing the capacity for understating income and making it easier to cross-check income figures with tax and national insurance records. As right hon. and hon. Members know, understatement of income is a common feature of the system at the moment. It will be much harder to get away with that once the Bill completes its passage through this House and the other place.
  I assure all who have contributed to the debate that our intention is that the administration of the system and the ethos that we create will develop a culture not only of

  1107
  maximum take-up of the system and the credit—the importance of that was put forcefully in Committee by the Liberal Democrats and my hon. Friends—but, importantly, of compliance and of intolerance of abuse. There must be a determined effort to bring to book those responsible for abuse. The regulations, and the guidance given to those seeking the credit and to those administering it, will buttress that culture.
  Secondly, concern has been expressed about the child care tax credit. The ability of the new tax credits to respond to changes as they happen will mean that support for child care costs through the child care element of the working tax credit will be matched much more closely to the actual costs incurred. At the moment, support for child care depends on the situation when the claim is made; once awarded, child care tax credit stays in place for the full six months, but we are awarding that structural point. Entitlement to the child care element will stop if the use of qualifying child care stops. Of course, the corollary is that parents who are already claiming working tax credit, and who become eligible for help with child care costs, will be able to apply for it at that point.
  The important point, which addresses directly the comments of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), is that we intend that there should be a system of rigorous spot-checks. Officials will visit nurseries to ensure compliance, so the system will not be lax or in any way tolerant of abuse. There will be checks, and we will try to improve links between the different Inland Revenue systems, which will make it harder for claimants to hide sources of income and to receive tax credits to which they are not entitled.
  To combat fraud, up-front checks will be made, and the automated systems and data sources available to the Inland Revenue will be used to support systematic risk-screening techniques. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made a very fair point—we have not always done as well as we should.
  I regret any failures to answer letters and queries promptly. Right hon. and hon. Members may not like the responses that they receive, but as Members of Parliament they are entitled to speedy responses and every effort is being made to improve performance in that area.
  5.45 pm
  Those checks will enable those cases that carry the greatest risk to be identified before payments are made. The Inland Revenue will then be able to carry out further checks and ask for additional information or supporting evidence from the claimant before deciding whether to put an award into payment.
  The Revenue will carry out up-front checks on all claims. The initial automated risk assessment will identify claims that present a high risk of non-compliance or fraud and need immediate investigation. Those will be directed for consideration to staff in one of the Revenue's research, intelligence and analysis teams. The risk weightings used in the up-front screening process will be capable of being varied, either centrally or locally, in response to different factors such as changing perceptions of risk. I think that my right hon. Friend will accept that that is a very different attitude and approach from the one that has sometimes existed elsewhere. The research, intelligence
  1108
  and analysis teams will also have access to third-party information and data from other sources, such as the self-assessment system, to assist them in identifying cases.
  During the year, the Revenue will carry out compliance work on cases where it suspects that an award is incorrect. Clause 16 enables the Revenue to require information and evidence to help it decide whether there are grounds for amending or revoking an award, allowing it to take effective action during the year to prevent tax credits being paid incorrectly.
  Clause 18 allows the board to conduct inquiries into awards after the end of the year, enabling it to implement an end-of-year compliance regime—investigating awards, ensuring that they were correct and either amending or revoking them if they were not. The clause gives the Revenue the power to require information and evidence from any person to whom an award has been made, provided an inquiry has been opened. The Revenue may also obtain information from third parties.
  In response to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, I should point out that there were more than 16,000 allegations to the hotline, but, as he will know, there were more than 50,000 investigations into working families tax credit applications. Up to November 2001, there were 50,382 investigations into WFTC applications and 1,668 into disabled person's tax credit applications. I suggest that that is not indicative of any slackness. The hon. Gentleman will want to know that we will be guided and informed by the outcome of the study to which he referred as we implement this tax credit system, and I can assure him that we will be.
  On the most serious cases of suspected tax credit fraud, the provisions giving the Revenue powers to investigate fraud cases effectively are in clause 34. Clause 33, which amendment No. 3 would amend, creates a new offence of tax credit fraud. Such cases will be those where the actions of claimants are particularly offensive—the use of false documents, repeat offences, collusive employers or organised fraud by criminal gangs. Those cases will be considered for prosecution, but where they do not proceed for one reason or another, they will go back to the compliance teams at local level to be investigated and penalised. There is no question of people just getting away with it. It is not a case of, if they are not prosecuted, there is no follow-up. There will be follow-up. A clear message will be sent that fraud is simply not acceptable. That approach mirrors that for tax fraud, where similar considerations apply in deciding which cases should be subject to prosecution.
  We on the Labour Benches cannot accept the notion that people who are being investigated for tax fraud, many of whom will be white collar workers or self-employed, should be treated differently from those who are being investigated for tax credit fraud, that tax credits are outside the overall tax system and that one particular group of people in society should be treated more harshly and more aggressively when it comes to prosecution than another. All people must be treated fairly. All people must understand that they have rights and responsibilities.
  New clause 6 seeks to introduce the offence of aggravated fraud where the sum of tax credit at stake is particularly high or where a person has been convicted of social security or tax credit fraud in the recent past, opening the way to a higher maximum sentence on indictment.

  1109
  Courts already have the power to take previous offences and the size of any fraud into account when setting sentence. We know that it is unusual for any court to pass a sentence for tax or tax credit fraud in excess of seven years, however aggravating the circumstances. Dealing with the mischief is not made more effective simply by ratcheting up the maximum sentence. That is an odd way in which to approach sentencing.
  There is, however, the common law offence of cheating the public revenue: that can and will be used in appropriate circumstances. It allows the court to pass whatever period of imprisonment it feels is appropriate—there is no maximum sentence. I hope that, having considered that, hon. Members will not feel the need to proceed down the road that new clause 6 suggests. There are sufficient avenues available, and they will be used where appropriate. New clause 6 simply is not necessary.
  Amendment No. 3 takes us into different territory. It seeks to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State for an annual report to Parliament on the extent of tax credit fraud and the counter-measures taken. I am not sure what it would add. The Inland Revenue already produces an annual report every year, which is presented to Parliament by Treasury Ministers. It covers, among other things, the Revenue's work on countering fraud and non-compliance across the range of its responsibilities. Since the Revenue took over responsibility for tax credits, the report has included its work on countering tax credits fraud and non-compliance. We are seeking to take a co-ordinated approach to tackling non-compliance in tax and tax credits.
  The Revenue is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and its board appears before the Public Accounts Committee. Treasury Ministers are, and will remain, answerable to Parliament on tax credit matters in the normal way.
  I assure right hon. and hon. Members that their points about the importance of a vigorous and determined culture in relation to tax credit fraud will be taken on board. We will seek not only in debates in the House but in any other appropriate way to ensure that the House is kept informed of developments in that area.
  I shall say a few words about the benchmarking study that was conducted on WFTC cases, which I know is of concern to right hon. and hon. Members. That work was undertaken as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of Revenue systems and, in particular, to inform the development of the risk assessment process. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has made it clear that we do not think that it would be helpful to provide details of the factors that the Revenue would consider when deciding whether to take up a case. My hon. Friend has said that she needs time to consider the results of the Revenue's analysis and will consider whether it is appropriate to make any of that information available. She has heard the points that right hon. and hon. Members have made forcefully and effectively, and no doubt in due course will communicate her intentions in that regard.
  This has been an important debate. We need to make sure that we send a clear message that fraud is unacceptable, that rights bring with them responsibilities and that we intend to ensure that we create a culture of compliance and determined enforcement of the tax credit system, while never forgetting that the system is designed to ensure that those who need help receive help when they
  1110
  need it. It is designed to ensure that we address the evils of poverty, particularly child poverty, and make work pay. In doing that, we need to be aware of the importance of combating fraud.
  I hope that I have demonstrated to the House our seriousness of purpose and intent and that hon. Members will not push the amendments to a vote.
  Mr. Clappison: This has been an interesting debate and it has ranged widely into theological questions. I always approach issues of theology and morality with a certain degree of humility and reluctance. I never like to say too much on the subject; I do not want to speculate about who is fallen and who is not fallen. In this context, I am interested only in finding out what the wages of sin are, but the Minister will not tell me. I have asked him over and over again and he simply will not say. We heard more elegant prevarication, if I may put it that way, in his speech.
  I should hate to be thought of as churlish in my response to Government amendment No. 23. I hope that I commended the Minister's response in Committee. I also commend his openness in revealing through his correspondence that the situation was even worse than we thought it was, and that the good that we have done through the amendment will be all the greater. Our sadness is that we have helped the Government in this, but we have not been given the chance to help them a little more by looking at nearly half the Bill, which did not receive any scrutiny.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked, interestingly, what the sentence should be and whether the maximum sentence was too harsh. I recommend that he look at the sentence of seven years' imprisonment, which is set for every fraud in the Bill. We are setting a maximum to deal with the worst cases of fraud—those that involve repeated offences of fraud and frauds of large sums. We would have to be realistic in considering what that large sum would be. It would be the amount that ordinary people thought indicated that somebody was profiting far too much. Some people are profiting far too much. On any view of it, the amount of fraud in the system is not reflected in the number of prosecutions. The Financial Secretary told us of the 50,000 investigations, but he did not go on to tell us that of those only 28 prosecutions were generated. The child care providers investigation did not result in a single prosecution, nor did the investigation of employers. So whatever applies to the rest of us as regards the wages of sin, as far as the Government are concerned employers are saintly and immune from sin, because employers are never involved in fraud. The Government are being complacent and we are disappointed by the Financial Secretary's response.
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [10 December].
  The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 294.

  Division No. 165]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Baron, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Beggs, Roy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bercow, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  1111

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Burnside, David

  Mates, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Butterfill, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cameron, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Page, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Paice, James

  Conway, Derek

  Prisk, Mark

  Cran, James

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Francois, Mark

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Soames, Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gibb, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spink, Bob

  Goodman, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Steen, Anthony

  Grayling, Chris

  Streeter, Gary

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Greenway, John

  Swire, Hugo

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hayes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hendry, Charles

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hermon, Lady

  Walter, Robert

  Hoban, Mark

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Watkinson, Angela

  Key, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Loughton, Tim

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

  Luff, Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benn, Hilary

  Allan, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Benton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Best, Harold

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Blackman, Liz

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Baird, Vera

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Brake, Tom

  Barrett, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  1112

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Browne, Desmond

  Gilroy, Linda

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burgon, Colin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burnham, Andy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Healey, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heath, David

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Casale, Roger

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hendrick, Mark

  Challen, Colin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heppell, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hesford, Stephen.

  Chidgey, David

  Heyes, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Holmes, Paul

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Coleman, Iain

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cotter, Brian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cummings, John

  Joyce, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kemp, Fraser

  David, Wayne

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dawson, Hilton

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lammy, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Laws, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lepper, David

  Doran, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dowd, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Ennis, Jeff

  Luke, Iain

  Etherington, Bill

  Lyons, John

  Ewing, Annabelle

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Farrelly, Paul

  McCabe, Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  McCafferty, Chris

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McDonnell, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  MacDougall, John

  Galloway, George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gapes, Mike

  McIsaac, Shona

  1113

  McKechin, Ann

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Southworth, Helen

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miliband, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mole, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moran, Margaret

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Hara, Edward

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Perham, Linda

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tynan, Bill

  Pike, Peter

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Plaskitt, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pound, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Webb, Steve

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Weir, Michael

  Price, Adam

  White, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Willis, Phil

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Wills, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Wishart, Pete

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wood, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ryan, Joan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wyatt, Derek

  Salter, Martin

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sawford, Phil.

  Jim Fitzpatrick and Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Question accordingly negatived.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERthen proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 31

  FAILURE BY EMPLOYERS TO MAKE CORRECT PAYMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 23, in page 21, line 22, after "has" insert—
  ', by reason of his fraud or neglect,'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  6.12 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am pleased to open this debate on the Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the detailed and constructive debates that have taken place on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. We have been able to discuss a wide range of matters of concern to hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I have been happy to explain the Bill's provisions, and I believe that they address some of those concerns. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for their assistance in these proceedings and for the very thoughtful way in which they have approached the Bill, not only in challenging the Government, but in genuinely helping us to consider the issues that it raises. I shall return to a few of those points briefly.
  The Bill marks another important step towards achieving the Government's aims of providing employment opportunities for all and tackling poverty. The Bill will introduce two new tax credits—the child tax credit and the working tax credit—which will provide focused and flexible support to families. There will be a single credit to support families with children and a separate credit to provide a top-up for the low paid, providing inclusive support for those facing persistent in-work poverty.
  The Bill will provide the framework for the credits, as well as a further streamlining in the way that support for families is administered, through the transfer to the Inland Revenue of responsibility for child benefit under part 2. By establishing a common framework for the credits, the Bill provides an opportunity to create an inclusive system of support in which families comply with a common set of rules regardless of their income or circumstances. The detailed rules for the credits will be brought out in regulations. I was grateful for the opportunity in Committee to provide more detail on those rules. I was also grateful for the challenge set by the Opposition to respond in varied and creative ways to their insistent and creative questions on whether I was able to share details on the rates and tapers, which as the House well knows are the subject of the Budget statement.
  Hon. Members expressed a desire for more detail to be included in the Bill. It provides the framework for the credits and the regulations contain the technical detail. That is the right way to introduce the reforms and is the norm for such legislation. It allows us the flexibility to adjust the detailed rules over time as we have more experience of the pattern and changing lifestyles of the families that we want to support.
  However, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and other Committee members explained, the powers to make regulations are subject to negative resolution procedure. There is nothing wrong with that approach. Like all Governments, we try to strike a balance between the appropriate use of parliamentary time to construct a framework and the way in which we deal with the mechanical issues, which in this case relate to how the credits work.
  I have given the use of regulations careful consideration. Important regulations will need to be made and I accept that it will be helpful to reconsider whether we need to use negative resolutions for every set of regulations. When we introduced the child care tax credit

  1115
  as part of the working families tax credit, and the disabled person's tax credit, the first statutory instruments to contain the relevant legislation were subject to affirmative resolution procedure. I will consider how we can make some of the regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the first instance, although they would have to return to the negative procedure. That reflects further the co-operative and suitable way in which the Committee approached its work.
  The new tax credits will be awarded for up to a year and are based on an annual income of the claimants for a tax year. They will make the process of claiming easier and will further integrate tax credits with the income tax system. The annual framework will allow the credits to be more flexible during the year. In Committee, we discussed at length how to provide the claimant with the certainty of having a stream of income for the year while ensuring that the system was flexible enough to adjust to changes in income that were dramatic for a family. At the same time, we did not want claimants to think that every penny of change would require a notification to the Inland Revenue. We had a helpful discussion on that in Committee. I hope that the draft regulations, on which we are consulting, will be available to Members of this House. They should also be available to Members of the other place when they consider the Bill and before it returns here.
  Hon. Members were concerned about the potential for overpayments to be run up, and about the complexity of the system. The annual nature of the credits will simplify the income assessment process. We will aim to make sure that in any in-year reporting of changes our desire to avoid any overpayment at the end of the year is borne in mind. When hon. Members see the draft regulations, they will realise that progress has been made to deal with those details.
  The Bill also provides for the credit to contain several elements so that the level support is dependent on circumstances. I confirm that the working tax credit will contain elements focused on helping various groups who may face in-work poverty. In particular, elements in respect of disabled workers and severely disabled adults will be included, alongside extra recognition for couples, lone parents and those working full-time hours. The working tax credit will also build on the success of the child care tax credit in the working families tax credit by providing a child care element. The basic existing framework will be retained, but the payment will be made directly to the main carer.
  In considering legislation in isolation, we often forget or are not able to bring into our debates the often complex reality of people's lives. Although the nature of legislation such as the Bill is simple, the legislative drafting of simple concepts sometimes demands further explanation. When considering the main principles of the Bill, hon. Members were anxious to ensure that persons or families claiming the credit were given a simple, direct and clear explanation of their entitlement, and that requests for advice or for help in making sure that they receive their full entitlement were responded to.
  I am confident that the Bill provides that framework for entitlement and strikes the right balance in respect of the problems to which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary spoke in the important debate on how to deal
  1116
  with those who commit fraud against the system. The penalties, sanctions and effective deterrents we can use against those who seek to cheat the system enable us to strike the right balance between making sure that people receive their rightful entitlements and preventing those who seek to steal the money to which others are entitled from doing so. None the less, the regime is geared towards ensuring that everyone claims their rights. The Bill strikes the right balance in respect of compliance and the provision of support to genuine claimants.
  The Government are resolute in our commitment to tackle child poverty and to ensure that work pays. We have already taken more than 1 million children out of poverty. The new credits build on the successful reforms of the last Parliament: the working families tax credit, the children's tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit, and the unprecedented real-terms increases in child benefit and out-of-work benefits. Those reforms have achieved a lot in a short time, but we now have the opportunity to introduce a modern system of support that can deliver even more.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb): we have the opportunity to change the system radically. That is precisely what the Bill is designed to do. We should not pass up this opportunity to make a huge difference to the lives of the poorest in our society, and to ensure that their children are not scarred by poverty, grow up in poverty, and inherit poverty in their working lives. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Flight: We have had a constructive debate on Report and in Committee. The only sadness is that we have not discussed or focused on many parts of the Bill. The Government should have delayed introducing it until they had resolved their policy and intentions, and decided how they wanted to implement them. There are no forecasts about costs, no indication of the size and nature of the benefits and no cost analysis. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, the consultation process was wholly inadequate. I understand that the original numbers in the consultation document were taken out before publication.
  Parliament is being asked for a blank cheque. This is a framework Bill too far, and Opposition Members do not accept that that is a justifiable approach to legislation that is likely to result in £2.8 billion of expenditure of taxpayers' money. The Bill is not in a form for it to be practicable to make a proper assessment of its proposals, either to oppose them in aggregate or support them.
  As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Bill's proposals are essentially similar to the negative income tax reforms proposed more than 25 years ago by the Heath Government. As the House will be aware, a Select Committee then reported on tax credits and there was an important minority report by Labour Committee members, some of whom still serve as MPs. The minority Committee was advised by Lord Kaldor and the Child Poverty Action Group, and led the incoming Labour Government in 1974 to decide against implementing tax credits. There were good reasons of principle for that. Those principles remain valid today and are the antithesis of the fine intentions that the Paymaster General has just expressed. The Committee felt that tax credits were insufficiently focused on those most in need, that the majority of the expenditure benefited people not in

  1117
  poverty, that the costs were too great in relation to the benefits paid to those who were in need and that the additional revenue would be better spent on more focused measures to help people in need.
  Roger Casale: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman repeat the argument that he made on Second Reading. Does he not accept that the world has changed enormously 25 years on? The argument for tax credits is valid today because we can no longer hope just to compensate people for being poor, on low wages or not having access to work. We have to achieve the dynamic effects that come from reconnecting people with the labour market, providing incentives to get back to work and, of course, providing proper child care and support for their children.
  Mr. Flight: First, I made those points in Committee, not on Second Reading. Secondly, they are points of principle, not just points of practice. Given the expenditure and the difficulties associated with the Bill's approach to addressing the problems of those most in need, the arrangements are not particularly effective. The hon. Gentleman will note that these criticisms have been made by a number of organisations that focus on poverty. There are many good things in the proposals, to which I referred on Second Reading. However, our objections of principles remain valid and have not been adequately debated—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
  Mr. Flight: In view of the many issues that have not been addressed, I suggest that the Government agree to give the relevant Select Committee responsibility to scrutinise the substantial volume of regulations that will need to be introduced; otherwise, as the Law Society has warned, many important issues and principles will not be considered properly by Parliament.
  I shall focus on difficult issues raised by the Bill, many of which are issues of principle that have not been resolved. There is the simple question of how generous and expensive the child tax credits will be. The lower the level of child tax credit, the less effect there will be on reducing child poverty, but the higher the level, the greater the risk of reducing work incentives, which the tax credits are intended to increase. More generous tax credits will reduce the financial disincentives to marriage or cohabitation for parents who are jobless, but the CTC and WTC proposals will continue some of the financial disincentives of the working families tax credit to marriage and cohabitation for parents. In Committee we touched on this issue, which is acknowledged by the study sponsored by the Rowntree Trust.
  Working families tax credit and child tax credit have already brought back elements of joint assessment for both married and cohabiting couples. As a result of the Bill, one partner will be liable to repay the CTC or WTC if it is wrongly paid to the other partner. That could cause a nightmare situation when couples split up. Although working tax credit will increase incentives for people to get a job, it will reduce the incentives as they earn more, and some will lose more than 90 per cent. through tax and the withdrawal of benefits. The problem of squaring incentives to work is by no means fully addressed by the
  1118
  Bill. Under working tax credit, as with working families tax credit, parents remain the only people who are not eligible for child care subsidies.
  As I said on Second Reading, I welcome the fact that the savings rules that applied to WFTC will not apply to child tax credit, but I do not recollect the Government ever setting forth the policy on savings for working tax credit.
  Both credits are complex and present people in real life with complex decisions about whether to work more hours and whether to live together or apart. There is an issue of principle as to whether Government should use financial incentives to influence people's personal behaviour in those areas.
  As in Australia and Canada, payments will be based on annual income figures, but unlike Australia and Canada, in the UK the Inland Revenue will not have the necessary data for many potential claimants unless the Government adopt the suggestion that all claimants should be required to produce annual returns for the Revenue.
  Major problems will remain in defining and determining cohabitation. The Revenue said that it would check whether anyone was lodging a tax return from the same address as the claimant, but care will be needed by the Inland Revenue to avoid the risk of making a wrong cohabitation decision, such that under the law a couple is deemed to be cohabiting, because there will be consequent penalties and difficulties in recovering overpayments.
  The arrangements depend on a great deal of information being transferred between Government Departments, especially from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Inland Revenue. We have not touched on the question whether this is potentially in breach of the data protection legislation, if not data protection principles.
  The Bill fails to ensure that a national system of credits and benefits is maintained, and it risks the possibility of disputes similar to the current threat that the Whitehall moneys financing attendance allowance could be withdrawn in Scotland. The threat exists as a result of Scottish Ministers having chosen to provide free nursing care. It is in the interests of the country that there should be one system in all of Britain to avoid the possibility of conflicts, which the drafting of the Bill has not ruled out.
  The Government have not resolved the difficulty of defining minimum hours to be worked to qualify for working tax credit, or how that will be checked, if at all. Will employers be required to provide information either regularly or on a spot-check basis? We have argued very strongly—this is the main point that has been made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies—that there is no work incentive argument for providing tax credits for singles and couples without children and thereby adding about 500,000 claimants a year.
  Another issue that has arisen is the fact that the Government continue to propose in the Bill what I can only call Enron-style, off-balance-sheet accounting. Some £4 billion of existing expenditure is automatically being transferred to a tax net-off, and another £2.8 billion will probably be transferred as a result of the Bill. A total of £15 billion of welfare-related expenditure will then be accounted for in terms of netting off tax receipts, rather than being shown as expenditure. The Office for National Statistics, which adopts the accounting conventions set out in the 1995 European standard of accounting, keeps

  1119
  the national accounts on one basis, but there are now difficulties in reconciling the Red Book with national accounts. There is no logic to justify taking the proposed approach other than that of seeking to conceal the extent of such expenditure.
  It has emerged from this debate that at the heart of the issue are our concerns about the complexities of the arrangements and our anxiety that the need for claimants to keep detailed records and monitor the number of hours worked, the amount of income earned and child care costs will lead to a much-increased risk of non-compliance. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was more constrained today, but as he has warned previously, the arrangements in the Bill are likely to result in spiralling costs of the sort that were experienced in America as people learned to play the system and to offer excessive bonuses for dishonesty.
  Above all—I suggest that hon. Members think about this point—the Bill will ensure that about 40 per cent. of all families will be on means-tested benefits. Some 30 per cent. of those will be of working age; and, on the Government's figures, about 80 per cent. will have children. Other tax credits will go to 56 per cent. of those in retirement. Stepping back, one can see that that means that well over half of the recipients will be paying for their benefits through direct and indirect tax. Is there any logic in a system that includes the costs, difficulties and administrative issues that are involved in taking money from people and then giving it back to them? That cannot be an ideal way of running our affairs. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has warned of the major problems in having too much means-testing.
  There are good objectives in the Bill and several aspects that we support, which I highlighted on Second Reading, but the House has not had the opportunity to consider many serious problems and a lot of the issues that I have sought to raise in this speech. I end where I started: it would surely be much more healthy for the Government who seek to introduce such legislation to bring to the House much more detailed proposals, rather than a framework in respect of which we do not know how many of the problems will be solved, when we do not know how much it will cost or whether 1.3 million people will be worse off as a result of its introduction. That is not the way to legislate, and I do not think that the Paymaster General made any convincing case for addressing this important territory with such a framework Bill, so we will abstain from voting. On the many areas that it does not address, there is scope to deal with hon. Members' queries through parliamentary questions, but it is to be hoped that many of the outstanding issues can be addressed in the other place.
  6.39 pm
  Jon Cruddas: Two elements dominated Government thinking on the social security/labour market interface in the last Parliament: first, helping families in poverty, especially those with children, by means of the children's tax credit; and secondly, pricing people into work through measures to alter the trade-off between work and non-work, through the working families tax credit.
  The Bill proposes two new targeted tax credits: the child tax credit to tackle child poverty and target support for parents, and the working tax credit to tackle in-work
  1120
  poverty and remove barriers to work. These two new initiatives develop the strategy of confronting poverty and restructuring the supply of labour that was started in 1997. The strategy on the labour market has been to alter the derived utility of work for those not in employment. It makes work pay by altering the trade-off between work and non-work by building a minimum floor for wages—through the minimum wage—and by constructing a take-home premium above market wage rates for poorer labour market participants through the working families tax credit.
  These measures work alongside the new deal and benefit-policing arrangements in terms of people's availability for work. If we add to that the record rises in child benefit and the 10p starting rate for income tax, the reform package begins to take shape. The Child Poverty Action Group has identified a substantial reduction in poverty—whatever measure we care to use. Separately, Piachet and Sutherland estimate that 1 million children have been lifted out of poverty since 1997.
  Any labour market initiative such as the working tax credit should be judged against the nature of the labour market that it seeks to affect. New analysis of the labour force survey data by Professor Peter Nolan, the director of the future of work programme at the London school of economics, is helpful here. Let us consider the three general classifications in the labour force survey: white collar; traditional services; and manual, manufacturing and construction. Between 1992 and 2000, white-collar professionals accounted for 1.5 million of the 2.3 million increase in employment numbers. Yet traditional services—covering clerical and secretarial, personal and protective, sales, postal and cleaning services—together with manual, manufacturing and construction workers still account for nearly two out of three jobs.
  Closer analysis suggests that the fastest-growing occupations have been: first, the four long-established services of sales assistants, data-input clerks, storekeepers and receptionists; secondly, state-dominated education and health service workers; and thirdly, the caring occupations such as those of care assistants, welfare and community workers, and nursery nurses. The fastest-growing occupation in the 1990s has been hairdressing. The fastest-growing manual occupation since 1992 was housekeeping, with a rise of 368 per cent. In short, the key areas of growth in the demand for labour through the 1990s have been in traditional, low-paid, unskilled and routine employment. Much of that is carried out by women and much is part-time.
  It is precisely because of these developments that the policy proposals before us are so important. The child tax credit will be the first single system of income-related support for families with children, irrespective of whether they are in or out of work. The working tax credit rationalises and extends the current provision of in-work support and, in so doing, increases the utility of work for more people.
  The Bill establishes the machinery, prior to the Budget, for an extension of our attack on poverty in terms of the realities of labour market structure. There appears to be a problem, however, in terms of the operation of the working tax credit. This exists in areas with exceptional market conditions and strong disincentives to work. They are areas characterised by relatively high-wage economies, but with significant proportions of deprived families and, often, single parents. There are shortages of

  1121
  child care and early-years provision, together with exceptionally strong disincentives in the housing market in terms of labour market participation.
  I am talking about London. Research by the Greater London Authority suggests that London has the lowest take-up rate of the working families tax credit in the UK—in London the rate is one in 10 families compared to one in six nationally, and one in five lone parents compared to one in three nationally. Part of this is accounted for by regional earnings differentials, yet even with a 70 per cent. write-off of child care costs, the higher-cost child care is a disincentive to participation, as are higher housing costs. Research suggests that people paying higher rents lose out. The gain through the tax credit is lost through housing benefit withdrawal.
  In short, because of a combination of forces, the labour market participation strategy underscoring the policy is less effective in London, as there are greater financial disincentives to participation. Let us take my constituency as an example. It is one of the capital's more deprived constituencies, with a high number of one-parent families and housing benefit recipients. According to House of Commons statistics supplied to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), Dagenham remains 533rd out of 641 constituencies in the ranking relating to the proportion of families receiving the working families tax credit.
  That implies serious imbalances between poor families' unemployment entitlement and take-up incentives. The issue should be investigated and there may be a need to introduce regional premiums to the regime to ensure that the policy works with maximum effect, consistently across the country.
  Overall, I welcome the Bill, as it is specifically designed to confront the labour market that we have, but I am concerned that we are not yet maximising the strategy's potential in deprived parts of the capital such as my constituency.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Webb: It is interesting to follow such a well-informed and thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas). It is a shame, in many ways, that we did not have the benefit of those and other insights from him in Committee. That is perhaps a shortcoming of our proceedings.
  On Second Reading, we gave a broad welcome to the Bill's aim to streamline and focus extra resources on families with children. We have not changed our position. As the Minister said, the Committee debates were instructive, and hon. Members from both sides contributed thoughtfully and helpfully. The Committee process highlighted the difficulty of debating such Bills in the absence even of draft regulations. I hope that the import of what the Minister said a few moments ago is that their lordships will have sight of the regulations early in their deliberations. I am reassured by her nodding in response. That will make a big difference.
  It is important to put on record one or two reservations that survived the Committee's scrutiny. As the Minister is aware, my principal reservation is about what the working tax credit is supposed to achieve, as distinct from other support for low-income childless people. I tabled two written questions to pick up on the Government's two
  1122
  justifications for the strategy. Both were for answer today and they were submitted in good time, but neither has been answered.
  One question relates to the Government's statement that poverty also affects childless people—they cite 1 million childless people in poverty. I simply asked how many of those people would be entitled to the working tax credit. In other words, how many are over 25 and working 30 hours a week? Very few, I suspect, but answer came there none. The argument that we need the working tax credit to relieve poverty is open to question.
  I asked about the incentive argument—an unemployment trap exists because a childless person who takes low-paid work does not get much reward. Clearly, there is not much reward for a renter, but there is a much greater incentive for a person whose mortgage is not paid for by work and whose help is not taken away when he gets a job. The anti-poverty and unemployment trap arguments for the strategy are weak and it is regrettable that we did not discuss the meat of that in Committee.
  The practicalities for our constituents of claiming these tax credits still worry me considerably. If authorities are to decide whether they will be assessed on this year's income or last year's, that requires an estimate of this year's income. Therefore, if 1 million-plus people must estimate income and if some get that or their hours wrong, there could be serious over-payment problems. Without being patronising, some members of that client group are simply not used to such calculations, so we may be storing up troubles ahead.
  The strategy is a difficult mix of the tax and benefits systems. In some cases, the benefit route has been chosen, as in the example of joint assessment, while in others the tax route has been taken. In particular, the appeals process, which we raised briefly, still gives me real cause for concern. I am worried that, instead of appeals going through the effective tax credit appeal procedure, a whole new tax appeal process will be created.
  We welcome the additional support for families with children and the attempt at streamlining, so we support the Bill.
  6.48 pm
  David Cairns: I am pleased to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, I could not take part in the discussions on Second Reading or in Committee. However, I have followed the debate in the Official Report, and it has been fascinating, instructive and, of necessity, very technical. It is important to step back from the technicality and consider the broader picture of the range of Government strategies aimed at alleviating poverty and making work pay for those who are in work but, for whatever reason, inadequately remunerated for it.
  The Government's commitment to poverty alleviation is strengthened by the Bill, which builds on the success of the working families tax credit, which in turn currently benefits 1.3 million families, including 1,893 families in my constituency. That is a large number in what is, even before the boundary changes, a relatively small constituency. Across Scotland, 119,000 families are benefiting in a very direct way from the measures.
  Incidentally, it is a disappointment to me that no member of the Scottish National party, which is alleged to stand for Scotland, has sought to take part in or even

  1123
  be present at most of what is an extremely important debate for Scotland. Now I shall move on, before I am called to order.
  We have heard about the minimum wage, the children's tax credit and the increases in child benefit, but no one has mentioned another important element in the strategy—the Jobcentre Plus initiative. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) might mention it, but perhaps time constraints got in the way. In my district authority alone, £3 million has been spent on modernising jobcentres, giving them excellent computer connections and making them better and friendlier places that can help people to move from welfare into work. The programme has been tremendously important throughout the country.
  It was said on Second Reading and in Committee that the fact that we are introducing this measure to build on the working families tax credit is an admission that we got it wrong. That is baffling. The entire history of the welfare state—certainly the modern welfare state—is that measures are introduced and the world moves on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) so tellingly said, so that we have continually to refine and improve on our systems. I hope that Ministers will not rest on their laurels and that they are already examining what further improvements can be made five or six years down the line. I am sure that they are.
  It was said of Beveridge, perhaps wrongly, that he believed that unemployment, or idleness, was the root cause of poverty. Perhaps there was too much emphasis in the past on simply getting people into work and off benefits, with the assumption that they would automatically stop being poor. We know from constituency experience that that is not the case, and we need tailored programmes for people who are in work but remain poor.
  I urge Ministers not to retreat one inch from the principle of delivering our programmes through the wage packet and the good offices of the Inland Revenue. We have had a good debate about the comparative stigma attached to the benefit book or the Inland Revenue approach, and I take on board the sincere points that have been made, but people in receipt of the working families tax credit who come to my surgery are very grateful for what they get and they want to explain all their circumstances to ensure that they can claim everything to which they are entitled. Stigma is not quite the issue that Opposition Members would have us believe.
  There are undoubted benefits in incentivising work and allowing people to look at their pay slip at the end of the month and say, "I earned that by my own endeavours, by being disciplined and getting out of bed in the morning." That is a positive gain, and I hope that the blandishments to revert to a benefit book approach will be rejected.
  We need only consider the difference in take-up between the working families tax credit and the systems that it replaced—family credit and so on—let alone the opportunities for fraud that the benefit book system introduced. If some of the amendments that we discussed earlier had been accepted, employers would have been printing their own order books and distributing them to their employees, and there would have been a great risk of fraud.
  1124
  We have heard some criticism about a lack of flexibility with regard to changing circumstances; the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made some good points on that subject. It is true that the situation must be monitored closely, and the system must react quickly to people's changing circumstances—but that applies to the current system, including the benefits system, too.
  A classic example, of which all hon. Members will be aware, is the position of school cleaners, who work fewer hours in the summer but get paid the same because their wages are aggregated and averaged over the year. I had a constituency case recently involving a school cleaner whose benefit entitlement was changed over the few months of the summer when she was working fewer hours. I am thankful to say that we got a result fairly quickly, so there is flexibility in the current system. It is not perfect, however; no system would be, and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise those issues. It is a flawed assumption that the current system is flexible enough. It must be improved.
  Some hon. Members have talked about stigma, but one positive change that has not been mentioned on Third Reading so far is the fact that the disabled person's tax credit will now be focused on the working tax credit. There will be a focus on the work that disabled people do, by their own endeavour and efforts, and they will get the rewards of being in work. That is a positive step, and has been welcomed by those who represent disabled people. They are not being patronised or getting a handout for being disabled; the focus is on the work that they do, not who they are.
  Much has been said about the effects on businesses. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General was too modest, in that she did not explain everything that the Government have done for business. That gives me the opportunity to mention that under the Labour Government we have the lowest inflation in Europe, the lowest interest rates in 30 years, favourable tax regimes for capital investment, the lowest corporation tax in many years for larger businesses—it is down from 33 to 30 per cent.—favourable regimes for research and development, and 1 million more people in work today than when we came to power in 1997. We must balance what some may call the burdens on business with the tremendous benefit to business of having a Labour Government who are friendly to business and understand and reflect its needs.
  The Bill will also affect the work of the Inland Revenue, where there is a quiet revolution under way. If hon. Members have not been to their regional office lately to talk to the people who work there, I recommend that they go. North of the border, we were fortunate to be invited by the Minister of State, Scotland Office to meet the Scottish chief executive of the Inland Revenue, and we were told that as a direct result of the Bill, the work of calculating, assessing and collecting taxes will be a minority part of the Inland Revenue's business by 2003. That is a big change from the position a few years ago.
  With its work on integrated tax credits, making sure that businesses comply with the minimum wage, administering student loans and so on, the Inland Revenue is undergoing a quiet revolution, and it is to be commended. When I have spoken to the people there I have been tremendously impressed by their vigour and their zeal for that approach to their work. They realise that there is a change in attitude towards them, because they are no longer seen as the bad guys of the piece but as

  1125
  people doing something positive. The Inland Revenue now has a much more business-oriented approach. It is proactive, going out to businesses to explain the integrated tax credits and helping them comply with the new arrangements.
  On Second Reading the Paymaster General said:
  "By the mid-1990s, the United Kingdom had the highest rate of relative poverty in the European Union and the highest proportion of children living in workless households."—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 598.]
  By the middle of this decade we will be able to say that 1 million children have been lifted out of poverty and 1 million more people are in work, and they will be receiving more help through the tax credits. I am extremely proud of that, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  London Underground
  7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of London Underground.
  Earlier today, the board of London Regional Transport announced that it was "minded to proceed" with the plans for modernisation of the tube. In coming to its conclusion, the board has undertaken a thorough evaluation of the bids to assess whether they are likely to provide value for money. It is confident that they will do so and that the proposed contracts will provide an appropriate basis for the future maintenance and renewal of London Underground's infrastructure.
  The board of London Regional Transport will now consult the Mayor of London and Transport for London under the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The final decision on whether to proceed will be taken in the light of that consultation.
  Last autumn, I announced that I intended to take independent advice from Ernst and Young on the evaluation process that London Underground and London Regional Transport had followed, and on the robustness of their conclusions. Ernst and Young began its work in October, and has kept in close contact with London Underground during the evaluation of the final bids.
  Ernst and Young reached the following conclusion. Overall, the methodology adopted for assessing the value for money by London Underground has been robust and appropriate, and London Underground's recommendation that the public-private partnership proposals deliver value for money is a subjective one, which is supported by its analysis. Copies of the report were placed in the Vote Office at 2.45 this afternoon, when I answered a written question on this issue.
  I have always made it clear that my approach to the modernisation of the underground would be based on three principles. First, there must be no privatisation; secondly, safety must not be compromised; and thirdly, the contracts must offer value for money.
  Under these proposals, there will be no privatisation. London Underground will remain in the public sector and will have control of all operations. It will run the trains, work the signals, control the track and operate the stations. So there will be no privatisation, or part-privatisation, of the London underground. The public sector will be in charge of the safe operation of a single unified network. London Underground will set the strategic priorities for investment, and monitor the performance of the private sector contractors that build and maintain the infrastructure.
  Where the contracts differ from current arrangements involving the private sector is mainly in their scope and duration, and in the allocation of responsibility for integrating the various packages of work necessary to upgrade the tube and modernise it properly.
  These are long-term arrangements that envisage a real partnership between London Underground and the private sector, which will work together to deliver sustained improvements. That partnership should enable substantial efficiencies to be realised and locked into the long-term process of tube modernisation. In particular, it should prevent the problems of the past, when infrastructure

  1127
  improvements—notably, of course, relating to the Jubilee line extension—have all too often come in over budget and later than originally planned.
  The private sector will be contractually bound to deliver specific improvements. London Underground will be empowered to monitor the contracts closely and enforce them rigorously. If the private sector companies fail to perform, they will be penalised for so doing. If that sanction fails, they could lose their contracts. If the private sector does not do the work properly or puts safety at risk, London Underground will have the power to step in, do the necessary work and bill the private sector accordingly.
  Secondly, safety will not be compromised. The Health and Safety Executive is currently considering the changes to London Underground's railway safety case to reflect the bidders' proposals for maintaining and upgrading the network. Only if those are accepted will the modernisation plans be allowed to proceed. If they do proceed, the infrastructure controller, London Underground—in the public sector—will retain clear statutory responsibility for safety across the whole of the network. The private sector infrastructure companies will have a contractual safety case with London Underground. They will have to perform to standards every bit as demanding as those required at present by London Underground's own statutory safety case. It will be for the Health and Safety Executive to accept the safety case. That is not a matter for politicians to decide. In my view, it is far better to leave it to the independent experts.
  The third test is value for money. I have always said that the tube modernisation plans should not proceed unless they are likely to provide appropriate value for money. In preparing its final assessment of the proposed tube modernisation contracts, London Underground has conducted a full evaluation of value for money. As the National Audit Office has said, value for money is not a simple pass-fail test. London Underground has carried out a thorough evaluation of bids, incorporating both a financial assessment against a public sector comparator and wider factors that cannot be quantified in purely financial terms.
  Essentially, the public sector comparator measures the cost of providing the same modernisation of tube infrastructure under current arrangements. It also takes account of two possible funding scenarios: annual grant and bond finance. Hon. Members will be aware that in December 2000 the National Audit Office reported on the public sector comparator that London Underground proposed to use and made various recommendations. Those have been taken into account in the construction of the comparator used for this final evaluation of the bids.
  London Underground's evaluation demonstrates that the tube modernisation contracts are likely to deliver good value for money over their 30-year term. Even when tested on a much more demanding seven-and-a-half year basis, the value for money of the PPP remains favourable. The bids look good not just against a public sector option funded in the conventional way through annual grant, but also one funded by bonds, which was, of course, the Mayor's preferred approach.
  On the basis of the advice that we have now received, the Government believe that the tube modernisation proposals represent the best way forward. In headline
  1128
  terms, London Underground will receive investment on an unprecedented scale. Now that the actual bids have been evaluated, I am able to report that we would expect investment of about £16 billion in the next 15 years. That figure includes nearly £8.5 billion to be spent on trains and signalling, nearly £4 billion on track, and more than £3.5 billion on stations. By any standards, it will represent a step change in the amount of money spent on the underground and will begin the process of making it a system fit for the 21st century.
  The benefits of proceeding with the tube modernisation contracts are considerable. Over the first 15 years of the contract, London Underground will save £2 billion compared to traditional public funding. On any measure, that represents a significant saving to the public sector. What is more, the contracts will mean faster and more reliable tube journeys than the alternatives. London Underground says that those could be worth as much as a further £2 billion to its passengers.
  Such savings can be achieved only through harnessing the private and the public sectors together, which is why this partnership is such an important feature of the Government's reform of the delivery of public services. Over the first 15 years of the contracts, £4 billion of the money going into improvements to the tube will come from private finance. Put simply, if that private finance was not forthcoming, it would need to be found within the public sector or not at all, which would mean less money to spend on other priorities such as health, education and other parts of the transport system.
  We believe that there is now a clear choice. On the one hand, we can move ahead with proposals that will see the tube transformed, with real year-on-year improvements beginning immediately the contracts are signed. We think that that is the right way forward, subject, of course, to the outcome of the consultation process and to the board of London Regional Transport taking a final decision to proceed with the contracts.
  Alternatively, we could look forward to yet more delay while different plans are prepared and a new procurement exercise is put in place. That would condemn Londoners to several more years of the status quo, with a creaking infrastructure that is unable to deliver the efficient and modern underground system that the travelling public rightly deserve.
  Our modernisation plans for the tube will unlock £16 billion of investment over the next 15 years, the equivalent of £5,000 for every household in London. There will be no privatisation. The publicly owned London Underground will remain in control and safety will be paramount, which is why the Health and Safety Executive will have the final say.
  These proposals form the basis of creating a tube fit for the 21st century, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I thank the Secretary of State for his usual courtesy in giving us sight of his statement before he made it. No doubt he expects us to rant and rave over the fact that the statement was made at 7 pm when the entire world knows exactly what he intends to do, but frankly there are more important things to deal with and I intend to move on, save to say that I congratulate the Secretary of State on making history. Usually statements at 7 pm have been on matters

  1129
  of war or catastrophe. This is the first time that a statement has been made at 7 pm on an impending catastrophe.
  In particular, I thank the Select Committee for its splendid work, which has made the Secretary of State's statement understandable, and the many Labour Back Benchers who have briefed me over the past few days warning me about the problems that are to come.
  The Secretary of State is enthusiastic about these proposals. Sometimes we are told that savings will total £3 billion, sometimes that they will total £4.5 billion. Now we are told that they will total £2 billion.
  The Secretary of State says that the proposals represent best value for money, real improvements and a saving for the public. I almost expected him to produce a piece of paper from the Government's favourite accountants saying that this is the best thing for transport policy since the De Lorean motor car.
  Does the Secretary of State understand that the proposals rely on a serendipity of circumstances? Everything has to be lined up to the most favourable of the various variable circumstances for the savings to occur. The PPP is more expensive than the Mayor's bonds. Does the Secretary of State accept that to achieve £1 billion of savings, efficiency savings of 35 to 40 per cent over the public service model would be needed? Given that the projects involve not only infrastructure but day-to-day maintenance does he seriously expect the House to believe that 40 per cent. savings can be achieved?
  The proposals also rely on the serendipity of nothing going wrong. The liability of risk for certain events and assets has been shifted from the private sector to the public sector. The liability of risk of contractors will be capped. That is why the Secretary of State was most careful to use the expression, "They will be billed accordingly." According to the contracts they will not pay accordingly because their liability will be capped. Does he agree with London's Transport Commissioner that
  "the amount of risk that has been transferred"
  to the private sector
  "is barely perceptible"?
  It is little wonder that the Ernst and Young report said that the assessment was "subjective". There has been no independent assessment, as Ernst and Young explains at great length. It said, more or less, "We were asked to do a job and we have done it. We have been asked whether the methodology is okay and we have said that it is. We were asked whether it would work. We have told them that the assessment was subjective." So all that money has been spent and we are exactly where we were to begin with.
  Let me briefly read from the Ernst and Young report:
  "The contract structure is unique, inevitably meaning that it has not been proven in a commercial environment … If the contract structure, in particular the risk transfer and review mechanisms, does not function effectively, either through poor design or operation, then there is a risk that value for money could be eroded."
  It seems appropriate in the period that the Secretary of State has given that we should ask the National Audit Office to be brought in to look at the assessment. This is probably the most major piece of infrastructure change in the world and we desperately need an independent assessment.
  1130
  I wish to ask the Secretary of State about the connection of Ernst and Young with the various contractors who are bidding. I expect such a company to have some connection with many of the main players, but I am surprised that it has entered into a partnership with W. S. Atkins, one of the principal bidders. Did the Department question the partnership? What assurances did the Secretary of State receive? These are matters of probity. I should be grateful to hear from the Secretary of State why it was felt appropriate for Ernst and Young to go into partnership with W.S. Atkins.
  The Secretary of State fails to address capacity. All the decisions are pushed to the second quarter of the 30-year period. There will be no new trains for years. There will be no upgrades for years. Ten years from now passengers will notice little or no difference. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Jubilee line will have no new trains or no newly refurbished trains until 2018? Will he confirm that the Bakerloo line will have none until 2018? Will he confirm that he will be 67 years old before the Bakerloo line sees refurbished trains? I know that the Government are asking us to prepare for retirement, but I do not think that that is entirely what they had in mind.
  The PPP will be supported by a combination of fare box and public subsidy. Before the Select Committee the Secretary of State said he felt that the fare box could cover 30 per cent. of the PPP without raising fares above the rate of inflation. Can he now tell us what the level of public subsidy will be over the first seven-and-a-half year period? Given that he has extended the consultation period until 8 March, which coincidentally is the same date as the Health and Safety Executive is due to approve version 3.1 of the safety case, is he confident that by the end of the consultation period we will have the HSE safety case?
  This is an off-balance deal. It is so off balance sheet that it would make Enron blush. For five years the Labour Government have neglected the tube. Public investment has been down by 25 per cent. Delays and overcrowding have increased. The measure bears all the hallmarks of the Secretary of State: it is wildly optimistic, it completely disregards dangers and it is made with the certain knowledge that when it is time to give account, others will be carrying the can.
  Mr. Byers: The House will be aware that the information was provided by way of a written reply at 2.45 pm when copies of the Ernst and Young report were placed in the Vote Office. We are having the statement now because this was the soonest that I could come to the House to make a statement. Business managers will know that very well.
  On the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman—of which there were many—he said that there would be a long delay before new trains were put on the Jubilee line. That revealed the fact that the hon. Gentleman is not a frequent user of the line. If he would like to go over the road and into Westminster station, he can travel on the Jubilee line. He will see that all the rolling stock is new. It would be rather foolish to try to replace it in five or 10 years' time.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there would be no extra capacity on the Jubilee line to meet the increased demand. What he has not seen—because he has not yet looked at the papers—is that there will be a

  1131
  22 per cent. increase in capacity on the Jubilee line within the first 10 years. The reality is that there will be increases in capacity on lines where there is currently significant overcrowding.
  As regards the fare box, I shall make the position clear: the assumptions in the papers show that there is no need for an increase above the rate of inflation.
  The HSE has no timetable for its report on whether the safety case has been met. The HSE is independent of Secretaries of State. It will take as long as it needs to decide whether the safety case has been met. There is no deadline. No one has laid down a timetable. The HSE will take its time and will arrive at a conclusion when it is ready to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of the National Audit Office. That is an important point. We in the House respect the work undertaken by the NAO. However, the view of the NAO is clear: it did not want to publish a report at this stage of the process as to do so would involve it too closely in the decision-making process. In the view of the NAO, that would make it impossible for it to carry out an independent value-for-money assessment after the decisions had been taken. That was the NAO's position. It would have made my job in reaching a decision an awful lot easier if the NAO had been prepared to make a clear recommendation on value for money, but that was not the case.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the capping of liability and where risk would be transferred. Because we are publishing the Ernst and Young report and because London Transport will publish details in due course, people will be able to see those details. The important point in the contract is that liability for the issues that worry the travelling public will be transferred to the private sector.
  I shall give the House three examples. If a train breaks down for 10 minutes during the rush hour at Victoria, the private company will be fined £21,000. If an escalator at Oxford Circus is out of action for a month, the private company will be fined £45,000. If a signal on the Jubilee line is out of action for a day, the private-sector company will be fined £300,000. Those are the penalties that will be imposed if the companies do not perform as they should.
  I was disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response. However, it shows that the Conservatives are thoroughly divided on their approach to the public-private partnership. Steve Norris, the Tory candidate for Mayor of London last year—and probably the Conservative who knows most about transport—said that the public-private partnership was, in reality, the only game in town and that to imply that we can just go back and have another negotiation was naive.
  So that is the reality—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like it when I reveal that their candidate for mayor holds a completely different view. We did not hear a word from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about the Conservative approach to the underground, but we know what it is, because it is on the record. The Conservatives have said, "We should transfer the underground into the private sector"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In "The Common Sense Revolution".
  1132
  We have ensured that we shall put investment into the London underground. The system has been denied investment for generations. The time has now come. If one talks to people travelling on the underground, they do not want political arguments—they want money to go into the system. This Government will deliver the investment of which the underground has been starved for far too long.
  Mrs.Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that London, as a capital city, is desperately in need of a modern and efficient transport system, and that its underground has been neglected for many years. Could he tell me, in fairly simple terms, why he is persisting with a scheme that is manifestly unworkable, when there is a volume of evidence that says that it is not value for money, that there is no control on the costs after seven and a half years, and that what he is doing is opening up the viper's nest of exactly the contractual problems that destroyed Railtrack? Frankly, it seems to many of us that, although his intentions are excellent, the result of today's decision will be more delay, more confusion and—very sadly for all of us—a system that will be indefensibly incompetent.
  Mr. Byers: I read with great interest the report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions—which my hon. Friend chaired—that was published on Tuesday. That obviously will have informed our thinking and will inform the thinking during the consultation period that has just begun.
  It is worth noting that this is not just the largest public-private partnership that the Government have entered into; it will also be the most open and transparent, because the public will be able to see in detail the basis on which we have arrived at our decision and there will then be a real debate during the consultation period about the merits or otherwise.
  On the specifics that my hon. Friend raised, she is right to point out that there are 30-year contracts with a periodic review after seven and a half years. I believe that that strikes the right balance between introducing a degree of flexibility into the contractual arrangements and having some long-term certainty. London Underground and London Transport will have the opportunity, in that periodic review, to address issues such as capacity on individual lines, because that will be a real priority as far as they are concerned.
  However, I have to say—this is a crucial issue—that I, of all Ministers, am not going to repeat the mistakes of Railtrack and the railway system. The crucial difference is that London Underground will remain publicly owned and publicly accountable. There will be no shareholders in London Underground. The priority for London Underground will be ticket holders, not shareholders. That means that it must concentrate on ensuring that the private sector delivers as far as the ticket holders are concerned. There will not be a great fragmentation of the system, because there will be a unified structure, and that unified structure will be London Underground. There will be three private contractors working for London Underground, but the unified structure will be provided by London Underground itself.

  1133
  Therefore I do not believe that this is a repetition of the mistakes that the Conservative party imposed on the railway network. Instead it is a new way of securing private investment while ensuring that London Underground remains in the public sector.
  Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of the statement, although I doubt that, when I received it, it contained anything that I did not know already, given that he had announced its contents yesterday and earlier today.
  The right hon. Gentleman's statement does prompt some questions. First, does he stand by the Deputy Prime Minister's figure of £4.5 billion-worth of savings, and why is he so confident that this represents value for money? He has himself said that the criteria are subjective. Ernst and Young has said that they are subjective. His statement has said that the PPP is likely to represent value for money. Mr. Wilkes, who is a PFI expert, has said that what tends to happen in this sort of deal is that extra costs are loaded on to the public sector model simply to tip the balance in favour of PPP.
  What has happened to the reputational externalities that have been referred to in the past? There is only one reference to those in the Ernst and Young report, and that is in the glossary. There is no other reference to them throughout the document. Those were supposed to show that £700 million extra was going to be loaded on to the public sector model. Where have those gone to?
  Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the consultation to which he refers will be genuine? Perhaps he will allow Labour Members the opportunity of a free vote to express what they feel about the proposals.
  Finally, on the Health and Safety Executive, the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no given date by which the report must be delivered, but will he guarantee that if there is any uncertainty about whether the safety case is valid he will throw out the PPP? There is clearly uncertainty about whether the PPP represents value for money, yet he is proceeding with it. Will he do so if there is any doubt about the safety case? I believe that this PPP represents the Labour party's poll tax on wheels, and that it will haunt them for 30 years.
  Mr. Byers: The safety position has been absolutely clear throughout—it will be decided by the Health and Safety Executive; it is not right for politicians to decide whether a safety case has been made. Independent safety experts—the Health and Safety Executive—will decide whether they agree with the safety case. I have said several times before that if they do not agree, we will not proceed with the PPP. I said that months ago; I continue to say it, and I say it again in the House this evening.
  The Deputy Prime Minister suggested that there might be indicative savings of about £4.5 billion—I read his precise words today. There are savings of about £4 billion, which is significant. [Interruption.] It is £2 billion, and £2 billion indirectly. Hon. Members should read the report that the National Audit Office produced in December 2000. I have looked at it in detail and, as those who follow such things closely will know, the NAO makes it very clear that the benefits of a value-for-money assessment are not just the direct financial benefits but the indirect financial benefits, and people should consider that if they want to look at the issue in the round.
  1134
  The NAO also said in its December 2000 report that value for money will not be a pass-fail; there will always be a subjective test. That is why I felt it was important that, rather than having a report to me that is not made public, I will publish the report and people can then judge the steps and decisions that I have taken. I am happy to do that; it is part of being accountable. There will be a row and a disagreement, and people will pick up certain aspects of the report, but as Ernst and Young says in its conclusion, on balance—it is a subjective view—it believes that value for money has been achieved.
  On the public sector comparator, we have ensured that there is a fair judgment. We have considered more than 200 situations in the public sector comparator. We did not include those that involved, I hope, unique large cost overruns—for example, the Jubilee line's cost overrun was about 67 per cent.—because I believed that they would distort the overall figure. The cost overruns in the 200 situations that we considered came to about 20 per cent. on average, and that figure has been included in the public sector comparator.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members can see how many Members are seeking to catch my eye, so unless questions are brief—by brief, I mean one question—an awful lot of hon. Members will be disappointed.
  Andrew Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the brave face that he has put on the statement, but that does not disguise the fact that this is a pig in a poke. Will he go back to the Chancellor and tell him that there were two cases for the PPP—first, that it was value for money and, secondly, that it transferred risk from the public sector to the private sector? Does he not accept that the Ernst and Young report does not show that the PPP is value for money? It certainly does not transfer risk from the public sector to the private sector. The contract management risk will be horrendous. The risk to the passengers of a declining service with no penalties still exists, and there is the health and safety risk as well. My right hon. Friend says that the Health and Safety Executive is totally independent, but will he confirm that it is his Department's responsibility to make available to the HSE sufficient resources to enforce the highest standards of safety in the contract?
  Mr. Byers: I believe that value for money has been achieved in the terms outlined in the Ernst and Young report. I also believe that risk has been transferred, as I outlined to the House in the examples that I just gave.
  I ensured that the Health and Safety Executive received a substantial increase not just in its own resources, but in the number of people it can employ specifically to inspect the railway system, which includes the London underground. It has the resources, which is why it can do a comprehensive job in judging whether it is prepared to agree the safety case. The HSE will be given the time to do that. There is no rush; there is no timetable. It will proceed at its own pace and arrive at its own conclusion. In my view, that is exactly how it should be.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Does not the Secretary of State realise that a consultation has

  1135
  already taken place on the scheme that he proposes? I refer to the consultation through the ballot box in the Greater London Authority elections. Was not the proposal thrown out overwhelmingly by the electorate of London because they had no confidence in it?
  How will the Secretary of State meet the capacity demands? Over the past 11 years, passenger journeys increased by 25 per cent., or 200 million. How will that be met in the next few years by this cockshy scheme in which no one has any faith?
  Mr. Byers: I think the hon. Gentleman knows, because he served on the Standing Committee, that the provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 were clear: the terms under which the transfer took place would be determined by the Government. We are determining those, as laid down in statute.
  Capacity is a key issue. That is why, under the modernisation proposals, capacity on the Jubilee line will increase by 22 per cent., on the Victoria line by 15 per cent. and on the Metropolitan and Circle lines by 17 per cent within the first 10 years. We are addressing capacity improvements within the first 10 years.
  Harry Cohen: I have spelt out in the House my opposition to many worrying aspects of this scheme, not least the fractured management and its consequences. It was interesting that the Secretary of State kept referring to the public sector as London Underground but did not mention the Mayor and Transport for London in that context. I limit myself to one brief question: who is accountable under the system—the Mayor or the Minister?
  Mr. Byers: Until the transfer, we remain responsible. The Greater London Authority Act allows us to take these decisions. When the proposals are in place, we will talk to the Mayor and Transport for London about a timetable for transfer. They will then take responsibility. Those are the provisions laid down in the 1999 Act. I know from conversations that I have had with the Mayor that they will be constructive in ensuring a smooth transition and transfer.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Given that the Government have taken more than four years to produce this proposal to put investment into London Underground, is the Secretary of State aware that the amount of investment since 1997 has been considerably less than the comparable period before? When he talks about an investment of £16 billion over the next 15 years, does that take inflation into account, because that will be considerable over that period? If it does, will not the costs of the contracts have to be increased? Taking all things into consideration, the more one looks at the figures, the more one must conclude that the level of investment over the next 15 years will not be more than it was just before 1997.
  Mr. Byers: That is simply incorrect. If the hon. Gentleman looks at core investment he will see that the improvements under our proposals are considerably in excess of the core investment proposals that were implemented between 1991 and 1997. The significant blip upwards was due to the cost overruns on the Jubilee line extension. The Conservatives talk about the great investment that took place, but they should look at the
  1136
  figures, as I have done. They show that the blip was a result of a failure to control the costs of the Jubilee line extension. If Members look at core investment, which is what we are dealing with, they will see a huge difference—greater investment each year for the 15 years covered by the proposals that we are putting to the House this evening.
  Mr. Clive Soley: The Secretary of State will be aware that the public know that failure to invest for decades is the reason that we are in a mess now. They also know that we need money put in, and we need it fast. To be frank, if anyone messes around with this and delays it, they will not be easily forgiven. Yes, the public want it done safely and efficiently, but they want it done, and they expect the Minister and the Mayor to get on with it, and soon.
  Mr. Byers: That is the important message. We have the plans, which are ready to go, and we have the money, which is ready to be invested—some £16 billion over 15 years. The message, not only from my hon. Friend but from London's travelling public, is clear: they have had enough of politicians arguing; now, they want us to get on with the job and invest the money. That is what we want to do. We have a plan, we have the money, and now we want to get on with investment in the underground.
  Mr. John Randall: The Secretary of State will know that Metropolitan line rolling stock is the oldest on the system. Will he confirm that it will still take between 10 and 15 years for that to be replaced? Will it also take 10 or 15 years to modernise the system, and are there any plans to extend the network?
  Mr. Byers: Full details will be produced by the contractors tomorrow. Offhand, I am not sure of the specific details regarding Metropolitan line rolling stock, and I apologise for that. The information will be published—
  Mr. Pickles: Circle line.
  Mr. Byers: No, it is not the Circle line but the Metropolitan line that is being discussed. The information will be available tomorrow. What I do know about the Metropolitan line is that there will be a 17 per cent. increase in capacity on it in the first 10 years.
  Ms Karen Buck: Everyone welcomes the commitment to additional investment in the underground to be delivered through a public-private partnership, but because the Government have chosen a model of public-private partnership in which the public have lost confidence, they will need to win the safety and value-for-money arguments not only today, but every day for the next 30 years. The Ernst and Young report says that value for money is
  "part art, part science and involves a blend of subjective judgements and fact-based analysis"—
  in other words, a highly educated guess. The report says that over the seven and a half years, it is
  "less likely to support value for money".
  How can a convincing value-for-money case be made when after seven and a half years there is no pricing structure and no contractual guarantee to deliver value for money?
  Mr. Byers: The important point is the periodic review. As is only right and proper, London Underground will be in a position to negotiate changes and improvements to meet the needs of the system at that time. That is the important aspect.
  Value for money is always a subjective test. I do not regret Ernst and Young's openness in expressing its concerns about the process. I believe that there should be a debate on the issues, and I will not run away from that debate. However, having looked at all the considerations in the round, Ernst and Young reaches the conclusion, based on the figures available to it, that value for money has been achieved.
  Angela Watkinson: In view of the serious doubts expressed on all sides about the likely success of the scheme, what arrangements will the Secretary of State put in place now to ensure that there is no further disruption or deterioration in tube services to the travelling public, such as my constituents in Upminster, who live at the end of the District line, before, if, or when any noticeable improvements are made?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady makes an important point about the disruption, cancellations and delays that people experience daily on the underground at present. As soon as one looks for the underlying reason for that, one finds the chronic lack of investment over generations. Now, we need to get the money invested. The money is there and we have a plan that will secure improvements. Now, we just have to get on with the job.
  Ms Diane Abbott: The Transport Sub-Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has systematically dissected the proposal technically, but I put to the Secretary of State the democratic argument. Whatever the terms of the Greater London Authority Act, the fact is that Londoners have said again and again, using every means available to them, that they have no confidence in the PPP. Londoners' support for PPP was tested to destruction in the campaign for the London mayoralty, and Labour's candidate was humiliated. Londoners do not want this; London's Mayor does not want it; and London's Transport Commissioner does not want it. Does it not make nonsense of regional devolution and does it not show a breathtaking arrogance to force that misconceived scheme down the throats of Londoners, who have said over and over again that they have no confidence in that way of proceeding?
  Mr. Byers: When the Committee reported, it had not seen the details of the contracts. Now that it has the opportunity to do so, no doubt it will consider the position.
  On the democratic points, the position is clear in the Greater London Authority Act, for which the House voted and which Opposition Members opposed. It is for the Government to determine the details of modernisation, which is then transferred to the Mayor and Transport for London.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My constituents are meeting right now in Chesham town hall with officials of London Underground to look at the
  1138
  appalling service on the Metropolitan line. They will not have been heartened, either by the Secretary of State's disgusting answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), or the right hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge about one of the worst London underground lines. Can he give my constituents a guarantee that Chesham station and the branch at the end of the Metropolitan line will remain open with a full service? Can he also confirm that it appears that anybody who is 45 or over in my constituency will have ended their working life before there is any real improvement to the Metropolitan line under his plans?
  Mr. Byers: They will know that the reason for that is that we had 18 years of a Conservative Government who did not invest in the underground; denied improvements to the hon. Lady's constituents in Chesham; and did nothing about the Metropolitan line or the District line. That is the legacy that we are seeking to deal with. The Opposition have no solutions to the problems; it is we who are prepared to take tough decisions and ensure that investment goes into the underground.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: My constituents in Kingsbury, my right hon. Friend will know, have endured speed restrictions to Wembley Park tube station for far too long. They will be as delighted as I am that one of the first things to be undertaken in the first year of the programme is the renewal of the southbound track, which will ensure that the speed restrictions are lifted. When they get to Wembley Park station they will, unfortunately, come out on a dilapidated, bankrupt station. Is the Secretary of State aware of the letter that I have received from Transport for London, which states that in its programme it has already identified £100 million for the refurbishment of the station? Does he agree that it is vital that money is spent to make sure that the station can safely control the crowds visiting Wembley and the new national stadium?
  Mr. Byers: Members will have an opportunity to see the improvements that will be delivered. The speed restrictions to which my hon. Friend refers are an example of the difficulties that will be addressed in a major track renewal programme. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about Wembley Park station, and discussions are taking place at the moment about the issue.
  Mr. John Redwood: We wait four years for a PPP to come along, then this shambles arrives late on a Thursday night after newspaper reports have been written, so little confidence does the Secretary of State have in the PPP. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that Ernst and Young has refused to put its name to his fantasy figures? Does he not realise that he will go down in history as the man who thought that the third way meant destroying a private sector company, Railtrack, then, to be even-handed, destroying a nationalised company, London Underground?
  Mr. Byers: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman did not waste too long coming up with those comments. Of course, he failed to reveal his own views, which we heard

  1139
  when he was shadow Secretary of State. He said clearly, as Hansard on 15 July 1999 shows, that he would privatise the tube.
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Conservatives are all nodding.
  Mr. Byers: Yes, Conservative Members all agree. That is where they want to be. Speaking to the Conservative party conference on 23 September 1999, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said:
  "We will transfer the Underground into a series of privately-run, vertically integrated, publicly limited companies."
  He did not mention that in his comments. That is probably understandable. [Interruption.] It is always interesting to know the right hon. Gentleman's views, which are usually far more interesting than the views of the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) or for Brentwood and Ongar. [Interruption.] I would never get personal with the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Wokingham reveals what lies at the heart of the modern Conservative party—privatise anything. That is the reality. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) should be mindful of his blood pressure.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: While bids are being submitted, I could mention that we are still waiting for a down escalator at Greenford station, and we have been waiting since 1943. Most of my constituents and I could live with an integrated system where safety is taken out of the political arena. What we simply cannot live with is more time standing on a platform watching the cancellation board, while people play petty party politics with such a vital issue. Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the timetable for implementation? We cannot keep on waiting.
  Mr. Byers: That is the important message, which I know the travelling public in London are expressing loudly and clearly. Provided no external factors cause a delay and we can proceed—people are threatening a legal challenge to the process, which clearly will mean a further delay—the intention is that towards the end of May or the beginning of June we will see the investment going in. It can start as soon as the contracts are signed, which we expect will be at the end of May or during June.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Secretary of State accept that his credibility, already broken-backed, has been destroyed tonight? He dismisses the report of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Select Committee, which has many experienced members who know a great deal about the subject, and which is highly critical of his proposals. He dismisses all the objections raised by Labour Members, and most damning of all, the words of Ernst and Young in the conclusion of the executive summary:
  "London Underground's recommendation that the PPP proposals deliver value for money is a subjective one which is supported by its analysis."
  1140
  After what he has done to Railtrack, the right hon. Gentleman has a nerve to come to the House of Commons to try and sell us this pup.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will always defend Railtrack. That is a position that he and his party have adopted. We know that £1 billion of compensation to the Railtrack shareholders is the Conservative party position. With regard to London Underground, I repeat that the subjective approach is one that the National Audit Office said will apply to the value-for-money test. That will always be the case, because in making a value-for-money test, one must consider a number of factors—not just the financial ones, but the benefits that will accrue to the travelling public.
  Ms Bridget Prentice: Those who are less than enthusiastic about the scheme need only look at the Jubilee line, which my right hon. Friend described at length and which I have to use every day. It would be a great service if it worked and if the signalling worked from time to time. They should also look at the docklands light railway and the service that it provides for my constituents in Lewisham and others. The docklands light railway is a good example to show why the scheme is the one that we want to go forward.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have an example in London of a public-private partnership that is delivering day in, day out—the docklands light railway. When people see that it can be successful, they will recognise that we are taking the right way forward.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Given the Secretary of State's experience in applying for the administration of Railtrack, what provision has he insisted that the contracts should include for orderly termination if one of the consortiums fails to deliver? Which person or body will be responsible for terminating a contract on behalf of the taxpayer and the London commuter if one of these underground Railtracks fails to deliver?
  Mr. Byers: The situation is not at all like that which applies to Railtrack. I shall keep saying it: it is not at all like that. The reality is quite different. There will be a contractual relationship between London Underground and the three private-sector contractors. There are financial provisions underpinning the viability of each. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the companies that are involved, he will see that they can call on huge financial support. London Underground will have the power to terminate if there is a failure to deliver on the contracts and it is only right and proper that it should be able to do that. Most importantly, London Underground, which is publicly owned and accountable, will be the body with that responsibility, and when the transfer has occurred, the commissioner, the Mayor of London and Transport for London will have those powers.
  Glenda Jackson: While Londoners are indeed tired of politicians squabbling about the underground, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to allay Londoners' fears that the Mayor and his Transport Commissioner have been deliberately excluded if they could be re-engaged by the Government

  1141
  during the consultation period? The scheme, which is the only way of attracting the relevant amount and gives a clear guarantee of safety, could then be brought into being with rather more support from Londoners than is being expressed by Opposition Members, who would, as we know, simply have sold off the whole underground.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the position of the Conservative party, which would simply privatise the London underground. It is right to recognise the concerns expressed by people in London and others about our proposals. We must take people through the arguments to show that this is not a privatisation or part privatisation, that safety will not be compromised because the Health and Safety Executive will take the final decision and that it is value for money. It is £16 billion that will deliver real improvements. The Opposition would not match the investment; they would take it away. We are ensuring that we invest in the London underground so that real improvements can be seen not in the distant future, but in the near future.
  Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State indicated in his statement that £4 billion of investment over 15 years would come from private finance. He said earlier today that the rest would come from fares or Government grants. The taxpayer and farepayer will not be expecting their money back, but private finance will. How will the £4 billion be repaid—or is this a debt that will be dumped on the people of London?
  Mr. Byers: It is certainly not a debt that will be dumped on the people of London. It is a commercial agreement that will secure the level of investment and guarantee the significant improvements in the London underground that we want. In the process, we will get the £4 billion of private finance, and there will be a return, provided that those private companies deliver the very significant improvements set out in their contracts. If they fail to do so, they will not receive the financial return that they would otherwise get. That will be one way in which we can ensure that they deliver on the commitments that they made in the contracts. It will be not a burden on the farepayer, but a balance between the responsibilities of Government through grant and our commitment, which we have made very clearly, which is to say that there is no need for a real-terms increase in the fares being paid by passengers.
  Jim Dowd: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the north London underground and reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) said about the DLR, which is not only working efficiently, but was completed on budget and two months early, in contrast with the debacle of the Jubilee line? Will he confirm that he will stick rigidly to the tests of no privatisation, value for money and safety? Once those tests are satisfied, the argument should be about product, not process, and ends, not means. The end should be a better service for the people of London, for which they have waited for far too long.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. The first key issue is that safety should not be compromised, and it will not be. The Health and Safety Executive—the independent
  1142
  experts—will make the decision on whether the safety case has been met. Secondly, there will be no privatisation or part-privatisation. London Underground will remain in the public sector. Thirdly, in the light of the reports that we have received today, I believe that value for money will be achieved. So we can satisfy all three criteria.
  The choice for people now is whether we make progress and get the investment in, as the Government want to do, or whether we find further reasons to argue and delay, and have a political row about the way forward. I happen to believe that if we delay further, we shall be condemned by successive generations of Londoners, so the real message—and the choice for me and the Government—is to get on with the job, put the bickering behind us and invest in the London underground.
  Derek Conway: The Secretary of State's self-confidence is wondrous to behold, and I congratulate him on that, at least. Will he, however, explain to the House the following comment in section 1.4.3 of the executive summary of the Ernst and Young report? It states:
  "The contract structure is unique … Whilst the exercise is unprecedented and provides some assurance over the contract, it remains unproven."
  Given what Ernst and Young says, and given what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee has said, does the Secretary of State not understand why hon. Members on both sides of the House doubt what he says, just as our constituents will doubt him? My constituents will simply have to avoid the right hon. Gentleman's trains and tubes, but if they drive down the A2, they will see another monument to the Government's proven track record, because they drive into London past the dome.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman's solution would be to privatise, whether it be the railways and Railtrack or the London underground. It is little wonder that the voters of Shrewsbury showed him where to go. I do not know whether he left by rail or road. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman used to be a resident of Tyneside, so we can have this sort of banter.
  Of course this exercise will be unique, because there has never been a public-private partnership on this scale before. It is therefore a truism to say that it is unique. But what it represents is £16 billion of investment in the London underground. Would the hon. Gentleman delay that? Yes, he would. He would not put the investment in; we will.
  John McDonnell: May I return to the powers of the Secretary of State and the Mayor? This public-private partnership creates an enormous dependency on a limited number of companies because of the scale of the contracts. If one or more of those companies nears financial collapse in the same way that Railtrack did, will the Secretary of State—or the Mayor—have reserve powers to bring that company into public ownership, or to take direct action in the way that my right hon. Friend did with Railtrack?
  Mr. Byers: The situation is quite different, as I tried to explain earlier. This arrangement involves the private sector working for London Underground in a contractual relationship. That is quite different from the situation that

  1143
  applied to Railtrack, so the remedies and the powers are not the same. But, under the contractual arrangements, the Mayor and Transport for London will have the power to terminate contracts—these are normal contractual relationships—and to re-let the contracts to someone else in the private sector.
  Chris Grayling: As is common with many Ministers, the Secretary of State is conveniently misrepresenting the policy of the Conservative party, the views of independent observers and of other people in the House right across the spectrum that we should entrust responsibility to the Mayor and the Transport Commissioner, and not to the Secretary of State. I am particularly distressed by the way in which the Secretary of State has dismissed the Transport Sub-Committee report. We took evidence which showed that the most significant improvements in the scheme would be back-ended to its later years. We also took evidence that passenger growth would rise in line with capacity, which means that overcrowding will not be reduced. Yet we now hear that the Secretary of State is not taking the word of that Select Committee—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can see that a considerable number of Members still wish to make a contribution. He should get to the point of his question.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is ignoring the recommendations of the Select Committee and listening to a report that says
  "We have not sought to verify … the information … provided by management"?
  Mr. Byers: I said earlier that the Department will make a full response to the Select Committee in due course, but the hon. Gentleman ignores an important point: within the first 10 years, there will be capacity increases of 22 per cent. on the Jubilee line, 15 per cent. on the Victoria line and 17 per cent. on the Metropolitan and Circle lines. Those are real improvements. The important point is that the seven and a half year periodic review will give London Transport and London Underground the opportunity to renegotiate capacity provision. They are able to do that and I understand that it will be a priority for them. The lines with most overcrowding will be dealt with sooner rather than later.
  Mike Gapes: I welcome the statement as the beginning of the end of the uncertainty, particularly for my hard-pressed constituents who have to use the overcrowded Central line. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a failed legal challenge will lead only to further unnecessary delay? It would be another factor for Londoners to take into account in 2004—part of the cost of Livingstone.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must end the uncertainty hanging over the London underground. Today's decision, subject to the consultation, will do precisely that. Of course, it is for
  1144
  Londoners to judge who is delaying the investment and who wants it to be made, such as those of us on the Labour Benches.
  David Burnside: The Secretary of State is well aware of the increased industrial action that has affected and inconvenienced the general public in London and the south-east especially. Will he incorporate in these rather loose financial projections the cost between the board, the management and the unions of a no-strike deal to protect commuters in London and Greater London?
  Mr. ByersIn the Government's view, those issues are best left to the trade unions and management concerned. We know from history that Government interference in such issues is often not helpful. It is far better to have a properly negotiated agreement between the trade unions and management. That is the view that the Government support. We say to all parties involved that negotiation is often the best way forward.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the scheme, which will not only bring substantial private investment to modernising a long-neglected public service, but motivate contractors so that they stay on budget and on time. That was shown in the last Parliament when the Treasury Committee examined the history of private finance initiative projects, which are very similar. Furthermore, the service will stay in public hands, which gives reassurance. However, does he accept that Londoners are tired of checks, reassessments and litigation? Can he assure the House that those will be minimised and that work will begin without too much delay?
  Mr. Byers: That is the important message—we want to get on with the job and get the money invested. My hon. Friend is right to point out the good work done by the Treasury Committee on the role of the PFI and public-private partnerships and the benefits that they can bring. I am confident that, when we have the opportunity to make the investment in the London underground, tangible benefits will result.
  Mr. Mark Field: We have heard a lot about the potential financial viability of the right hon. Gentleman's programme. I am more concerned with its political viability. Does he genuinely think that he will convince Londoners that it is somehow a good thing?
  Mr. Byers: We will convince Londoners by ensuring that there is no privatisation, that the system is safe and that real improvements are being achieved. I believe that the plan we have outlined today will do precisely that.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it would be generous to describe support for the proposals among the people of London as minimal? What will be the political consequences of that?
  Mr. Byers: I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but people will see that safety is not compromised, because the Health and Safety Executive

  1145
  will have responsibility for it; that there is no privatisation, because London Underground will remain in the public sector; and that there will be value for money and the investment will go in. The real test will be whether there are real improvements in the London underground, and I believe that there will be.
  Joan Ryan: It may be worth reminding ourselves that the largest poll of Londoners' views was taken in last year's general election, at which Labour once again swept to victory in London with by far the greatest number of seats, and that PPP was a manifesto commitment. It is privatisation that Londoners do not want. My constituents tell me that they want London Underground to stay in public ownership, with safety paramount and no more delays. They want us to get on with the investment and the improvements. The only other issue of concern to them is that the underground remains affordable. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right: the issues are safety; ensuring that there is no privatisation; and getting the investment in. I understand the concern about fares, which is why all the work that has been carried out has been based on the assumption that they do not need to be increased above the rate of inflation—so there will be no real-terms increase in fares as a result of our proposals.
  Clive Efford: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my right hon. Friend said that if contracts were terminated, they would revert to London Underground, which would be free to re-let them. In the interests of accountability, so that Londoners can know who will be making the important decisions about the long-term future of the underground, does that mean that London Underground then ceases to pay the infracos that are being engaged under the PPPs, and if not, in what circumstances can those payments be terminated? Will London Underground have the right to step in at any time if the infracos fail to deliver the improvements, and not only if there is a deterioration?
  Mr. Byers: The situation will be the one that applies under normal rules of contract. If the private sector contractors fail to deliver their contractual obligations, they will be in either a breach or a fundamental breach of contract, depending on the seriousness, and Transport for London will be able to impose penalties according to the nature of the breach. TFL will have responsibility. If there is a safety issue, it has immediate step-in rights and can remove the contractor and do the work itself, billing the contractor for any work that is necessary. If there is a breach of contract, the remedies, which depend on the seriousness, are there under the normal law of contract.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I agree with my right hon. Friend when he says that performance is important, but let me remind him of the paragraph in Ernst and Young's report that says:
  "Performance Payments included in the analysis are only expected levels, bidders are not contractually bound to these levels, and therefore performance and subsequent payment levels could vary."
  Bearing it in mind that we have seen barrow loads of documents wheeled into London Underground today, and yet we still do not have a contractually binding
  1146
  arrangement, what guarantee can he give that contractors will deliver what they promise and that the penalties will achieve what he says they will?
  Mr. Byers: In a lengthy reply that I gave earlier today, I said that one of the conditions that we have attached to our approval is to ensure that there are no material changes in the contracts between the position today and the time of financial closure. That was one of Ernst and Young's recommendations.
  Linda Perham: I agree that after years of neglect and threats of privatisation from the Tories, we need the investment in London Underground, and I welcome the refurbishment of my local station, Hainault, planned for October next year, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents and other London underground users would much prefer priority to be given to improvements in track and signalling, and more trains? Does he also agree that, as other hon. Members have said, there is, unfortunately, a credibility gap with the PPP, particularly among party members and the trade unions?
  Mr. Byers: When my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to examine the plan in detail, she will see that the bulk of the investment—£8.5 billion, I think—is going into track and signals. That will make a significant difference. Moreover, it is false to say that investment in stations will not improve the service. In many parts of the network—including places that most Members will know, such as Victoria, Oxford Circus and King's Cross—stations are closed at certain times of the day because of overcrowding. One of the ways in which we can change that is by changing the design of the stations, so it is wrong to portray work on stations as merely a superficially attractive approach. There are good reasons, in terms of capacity, reliability and performance, why it should be a priority.
  Mr. Iain Coleman: It is with considerable sadness that I have to advise my right hon. Friend that in my view, the overwhelming majority of the thousands of my constituents who struggle to work and back every day using the 11 underground stations in my constituency have to use a service that is dirty, chronically unreliable and expensive. It is their view that the worst possible way to try to turn the service round is to hand it over now to the Mayor and the Commissioner for Transport for London, who genuinely believe that the service is massively overcomplex, expensive and intrinsically unsafe. May I urge—indeed, beg—my right hon. Friend, even at this very late stage, to reopen negotiations with Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Kiley, so that there can be an agreed settlement between the parties, which Londoners can support? They will then be able to have the service that they deserve. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that they certainly do not support this—and they do not deserve it, either.
  Mr. Byers: The Commissioner for Transport was charged by the Prime Minister last year with the responsibility of trying to negotiate a deal with the private contractors, and was unable to do it. That is regrettable, but that was the situation. It is wrong to say that the new system will be unsafe. I know that allegations have been made, but it will be for the Health and Safety Executive

  1147
  to determine whether the safety case is made. This is not a repeat of Railtrack on the underground. There will be no shareholders in London Underground; the travelling public will come first. I say to my hon. Friend, with his 11 underground stations and his many constituents who travel on the underground, that I recognise that the present level of service is unacceptable. The choice is what we are going to do about it? Are we to continue with constant political bickering about a solution, or shall we get on with the job? I think that for the travelling public in London, the issue now is who is going to get on with the job—and the Government intend to do that.
  Roger Casale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, because although there is a time to debate such issues, there is also a time when it is the job of the Government to decide. I believe that I speak on behalf of the majority of people in my constituency who use the District and the Northern lines when I say that that time has now come. My constituents will judge my right hon. Friend's decision not on the quality of debate tonight but on the results of putting the investment in. They know that we will not get results by privatising the tube, as the Tories want to do, and they are not unrealistic enough to believe that an extra penny on income tax would produce those results, either. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, we have a very viable public-private partnership in the Merton to Croydon Tramlink. Will he continue to put the arguments about why the proposed public-private partnership is in the public interest—but, most important of all, will he please get on with the job?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend speaks for many of the travelling public in London when he stresses the importance of learning from success stories such as the Croydon Tramlink, which is a good example of a public-private partnership. There are other examples in London's transport system, too, and the important message is that our proposals for London Underground will ensure that it remains in the public sector—there will be no privatization—safety will not be compromised, and we will unlock £16 billion of investment in the London underground. That is the equivalent of £5,000 for every household in London. That is the scale of investment that the Government want to see and those who delay or block it will be condemned by generations of Londoners in the future.
  Mr. Pickles: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on how we may record the fact that of the 21 Labour Members who asked questions on the statement, only five were in favour of the PPP—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

  Housing (Haringey)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  8.20 pm
  Mr. David Lammy: I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by my first Thursday Adjournment debate in which I shall address the important issue of housing in Tottenham and the London borough of Haringey. This is the second debate on the housing crisis in London this week. I am especially grateful to the Speaker's Office, because I know that Mr. Speaker personally selects the subjects to be raised on the Thursday Adjournment.
  Housing impinges on life's many fundamentals, including health, security, education and employment opportunities. Good-quality, permanent housing can generate a sense of community. It is the difference between a building and a home. A real home defines a sense of self, family and personal stability. It allows people a life of dignity and, in a sense, it is that dignity that is at the core of this debate.
  No advice surgery I hold passes without a number of Tottenham parents describing the tremendous overcrowding in their two-bedroomed properties, where four or five brothers and sisters are crowded into one bedroom. That leads to poor health and safety standards for the family, little room for children to do their homework and endless sibling conflict. It is no wonder that many of our young people prefer the relative privacy of corners outdoors, on the estate, in the park or at the bottom of the street, where they can hang out with their friends, to falling out with their brothers and sisters in cramped conditions with stressed-out parents.
  We know that such overcrowding leads to a breakdown in family relations, missed educational opportunities, exposure to physical and mental health problems and a growth in the drop-out culture, in which young people bypass legal employment and become involved in crime. That was the stark reality of Tottenham in the 1980s surely in the 21st century it is time for us to move on.
  The tremendous volume of temporary accommodation is probably our biggest obstacle to moving on in Tottenham. While it feels intensely like a problem faced only in Tottenham, it is linked to homelessness in London as a whole. In that respect, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing an Adjournment debate yesterday on the housing crisis in London. In that debate, he stated, rightly, that there are 48,000 homeless households in accommodation in London. Some 10 per cent. of those households are in the borough of Haringey. That is 5,000 households—1,000 more than in any other London authority—which is between 15,000 and 20,000 homeless people.
  When I speak of homeless households, I am not referring to the 532 people who literally live and sleep on the streets. That number has fallen by two thirds, thanks to the work co-ordinated by the Government's rough sleepers unit. Rather, I am referring to people, including many families with children, who are without a home and who present themselves either to Haringey social services or to the housing department as having nowhere to live.
  At present, London's population growth is not out of control, with an increase of about 2 per cent. per annum. In numbers, that is significant, but it does not reflect the

  1149
  homelessness crisis proportionately as the homeless household rate is more than 10 times greater. In the past two years, the number of homeless households has increased by an alarming 25 per cent. That cannot all be put down to greater numbers of newly arrived asylum seekers.
  The trend in the past 10 years has been for the large-scale buying up of properties by landlords and less reputable real estate agents. It is a scandal that those private social landlords—many of them modern-day pariahs—renovate the properties to minimum standards, divide already small houses into much smaller, unappealing flats and then, what is much worse, rent them back to local authority housing departments and the National Asylum Support Service at exorbitant rates.
  If I may, I will describe the situation of a professional couple with young children in my constituency. The family bought a long lease in a privately built new block of flats in Tottenham. The flats were sold as an attractive and modern, new development with good transport links to the City and the west end. However, the developer and freeholder were soon in dispute and basic maintenance work was not done. A cycle of deterioration began common parts were not cleaned, wear and tear stayed worn and torn, the walls became dirty, the carpets stained and ripped. The front door lock and the intercom were smashed and unrepaired. Attempts to get together with other leaseholders in the block to pressure the freeholder failed.
  Families started to move out and sublet to others with less stake in the property. Leases became hard to sell without a loss. A landlord in the temporary accommodation business gradually bought up half the flats cheaply from people desperate to get out. Others rented out their flats and are living elsewhere. Soon, that couple were the only original leaseholders still living there. Their neighbours now come and go, sometimes leaving without warning—some are rehoused, some are deported and some are evicted when their rent stops being paid.
  Corridors get littered—rubbish, unwanted furniture and items left by previous tenants are thrown in the yard outside, attracting more dumping from the surrounding area. Owing to the smashed front door and the availability of discarded furniture and beds, some rough sleepers have moved into the downstairs cupboard. The common parts are used by local young people to sniff glue, smoke crack cocaine or inject heroin. Burglary is a problem and residents never know who is going to be around the corner.
  In all practical respects, the family are living in an unmanaged temporary accommodation block. The landlord who owns half the flats re-lets them to refugees and asylum seekers as bed-and-breakfast annexes and charges the local authority £250 per week. Breakfast appears to be a weekly plastic bag containing milk, a loaf of bread and a box of corn flakes.
  If that were the only such example, I would not have asked for an Adjournment debate, but this is not an isolated incident. My constituents will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is not a street, a close, an avenue or an estate in my constituency that self-seeking landlords have left untouched. The knock-on effects are huge and equally destructive. The opportunities for families who have grown up and lived in Tottenham for
  1150
  many years and who seek a permanent home there increasingly diminish as we risk the area becoming a colossal modern-day dormitory for people with the most desperate needs.
  Presently, planning powers are not sufficient to prevent the particularly insidious development of bed-and-breakfast annexes. Although intended to encourage home owners to buy and live in Tottenham, the recent announcement of relief on stamp duty on the purchase of properties in deprived areas will no doubt lead to the proliferation of those annexes. A knock-on effect of the annexes is the low incentive for tenants to become financially active because they know that they will never be able to afford to pay their housing costs, thus creating a poverty trap for all but the landlords.
  Tottenham's proliferation of temporary housing is directly responsible for high population transience, which detracts from our best efforts locally and nationally to regenerate the area and build a safe, sustainable community. There is up to a 20 per cent. turnover rate of people moving in and out of the area, constantly, week on week, month on month, year on year. That level of transience seriously damages any hope of community cohesion. It is exacerbated by boroughs as far afield as Redbridge and Hammersmith and Fulham placing their homeless families in Tottenham without any obligation to let Haringey council know where those families are.
  I will be honest I am extremely worried. I have said before in the House that I grew up in a working-class community in Tottenham in the 1970s and 1980s. It was a community then of primarily white working-class, Caribbean, Irish and Cypriot families. It worries me that the children of the very families who thrived and made a home in that part of London, which has always been a gateway to the rest of London—a tradition of which we are proud—should now come to my surgery and express wrongly placed resentment towards newcomers for the poverty and instability that they purportedly bring.
  Long-term residents who are housed by Haringey council find that they are unable to move to larger properties as their families expand, because those in temporary housing are naturally prioritised as permanent dwellings become available, leaving longer-term tenants lower down in the housing list.
  We must not remain silent about the real backlash that asylum seekers face because of our failure to deal with London's housing crisis strategically. Families living in temporary households are disadvantaged because of the simple fact that they are seeking temporary accommodation. They face further social exclusion as they try to settle into a new area, get their children into a new school and gain access to public services. For many, English is their second language, and the one thing that they can be certain of is that they will have to move again in due course.
  Research commissioned by Haringey council showed that of the children who had the stability gained from remaining in the same school in Tottenham for more than three years, 74 per cent. gained key stage 2, against the national average of 75 per cent. For children who had been in school for less than a year, the figure was 38 per cent. Clearly, their geographical instability was detrimental to their learning opportunities.
  Furthermore, general practitioner registration lists show 3,000 rather than the recommended 1,300 patients in many of Tottenham's surgeries. We house the highest

  1151
  proportion of asylum seekers and refugees in the country, yet every ward in Tottenham is on the index of deprivation. When one throws together the circumstances of long-term and temporary residents living in a concentrated area of high deprivation, battling for access to overstretched public services, it is clear that there is a powder keg waiting to explode.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will know that two weeks ago I took a delegation from Haringey council to meet Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning. I am pleased that he agreed to work with the council to commission further research to help us to understand the issues.
  The solutions need to be addressed in a pan-London framework. Local housing authorities should co-operate rather than compete. In the short term, I would like a quota system for the number of temporary housing placements in each London borough to be developed. In the medium term, we need increased planning powers to control the present mass buy-up of available properties in Tottenham. In the medium to long term, registered social landlords such as housing associations must be encouraged to take the lead in the acquisition and renovation of a large stock of good-quality temporary accommodation in London. That means providing registered social landlords with the financial means and incentives to purchase and renovate properties to a decent standard and protecting them to some extent from the financial risks involved.
  Like other world-class cities, London faces the challenge of dealing with housing need. Its economy is growing, so its population will continue to rise, with consequent housing pressure on inner-London areas. Therefore, that issue requires strategic policy development and the implementation of measures that aim to control the problem, rather than allow it to overwhelm us.
  Despite all I have said, as someone who has grown up in Tottenham I feel compelled to tell my hon. Friends that there are many success stories to applaud in Tottenham. That is undoubtedly due to the commitment of the Labour Government who have targeted deprived areas, so savagely attacked by the previous Administration. Money is most definitely going into Tottenham, with more than £100 million of investment going into regeneration. Unemployment is down 17 per cent. since 1997, our schools are improving with nine schools out of special measures. Thankfully, we are a long way from the ugly scenes of the 1980s when anger burst onto our streets, because the investments made by the Government have to some extent given my constituents the breathing space to heal those deep wounds.
  This Government recognise the moral and economic imperative of creating a nation where all people have access to a top-class education, to decent jobs, to neighbourhoods of which they can be proud and call home. My constituents certainly share that vision. One of the greatest problems holding them back from living that vision is the housing situation that keeps them chained to social exclusion. One can lengthen the chain by improving schools, the health service and crime rates, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to help them break free from a housing situation that keeps my constituents shackled.
  8.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on securing this debate on an important issue for Haringey and people across London. He set out clearly and eloquently the size of the task facing the Government in meeting the housing needs of people in London. He is right to say that this is the second Adjournment debate this week on the subject of housing in London, which shows the concern that exists and the need to find a strategic, London-wide solution.
  Two issues in particular need to be addressed and both were inherited by the Government from our predecessor. The first concerns the backlog of repairs and the need to bring social housing up to a decent standard after the Tory years of neglect and lack of investment. The second concerns the failure over those years to deal with upgrading some of the recognisable standards of what we would regard as being suitable housing. I shall deal with those matters during my speech. The main ones include the need to revise the overcrowding standards, the need to get a definition of homelessness that resonates with what people would recognise as homelessness, and the need to deal with some of the fitness standards. My hon. Friend set out clearly the consequences of those failures for his constituents.
  In looking at the need for a strategic, London-wide solution, my hon. Friend may be aware that tomorrow there will be a conference to launch the consultation process for the 2002 London housing statement. It will set out the key housing policies and priorities for the capital, and describe the contribution that local authorities, registered social landlords and other major stakeholders can make to improve the quality and the quantity of the housing stock. It will form the basis of the Housing Corporation's investment strategy for 2003–04 and give direction to the housing strategies of all the London boroughs. The Minister for Housing and Planning will address the conference and I am sure that all London Members will take a great interest in that debate and will have a lot to say about it.
  The Government are very aware of and concerned at the steep increase in the number of homelessness households in London and elsewhere, and in particular about their being placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. While we should be concerned about any increase, particularly about families with young children who are forced into bed and breakfast, 10 years ago the crisis in London was very much worse. That is not to say that we are complacent about the present situation; the Government have promptly taken action to address the figures showing an increase over the past couple of years.
  We are aware of the phenomenon of landlordism which has afflicted the north of the country as well as London with annexed accommodation. Although in some cases such accommodation may have advantages over traditional bed-and-breakfast accommodation, it causes severe problems—especially when landlords simply go for housing benefit and make no effort to provide the housing management that would be expected of a social landlord.
  My hon. Friend highlighted the difficulties in respect of high numbers, costs, turnover and standards. His points are well taken. The bed and breakfast unit has been asked

  1153
  to investigate them and to talk further to Haringey. The unit is working with local authorities and colleagues throughout the Government to find ways of helping authorities to access more temporary accommodation in their own boroughs. They are considering the strategic, pan-London measures that my hon. Friend described.
  The scale of homelessness has not been properly recognised in some legislation. As my hon. Friend knows, the Homelessness Bill is completing its passage through Parliament. We shall also introduce a priority needs order. For the first time, those measures will include some groups of homeless people in London who have never had housing rights, especially 16 and 17-year-olds and care leavers. It will be a major challenge to meet their needs.
  As part of our commitment to tackling the problems of homelessness, my Department is setting up a new homelessness directorate. It will include the bed and breakfast unit and will work with local authorities, such as Haringey, to reduce homelessness and the number of people in bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation. It will also be responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of the Homelessness Bill.
  We are also introducing the "Supporting People" programme. My hon. Friend mentioned that for some people their home is not just the roof over their head. The programme will provide an opportunity for some of the most vulnerable people in our society—especially in London—to have a home with support services. They will be able to live properly. The programme will provide more sustainable communities.
  Affordable housing is of prime concern to many people in London. The Government have a range of strategies to ensure that, over time, we improve affordable housing and increase it. As my hon. Friend knows, we have increased investment in housing in London.
  My hon. Friend also identified the problem of housing standards. Many people are condemned to live in unfit housing. That is why the Government made a clear commitment to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010 and a third of it up to a decent standard by 2004. Money has been put into achieving that target. It will not be an easy task for Haringey and other London boroughs that have huge repair backlogs. However, with good business planning and careful consideration of all the available investment options, I am confident that those targets can be achieved.
  My hon. Friend mentioned overcrowding and the fact that, at many of his advice surgeries, constituents turn up accompanied by one or two children, with whom they are living in a one-bedroom flat. They suffer significant problems of overcrowding, and the children have nowhere to do homework.
  The Government are intensely aware of the concern about the current overcrowding standards. The current room and space standards date from the Housing Act 1935 and have not been revised since. The fact that they have passed unchanged from 1935 to 1985 and then on into the 21st century is in itself a reason for taking a close look at them now. We have been taking a keen interest in that issue. I believe that it is time for the standards to be re-examined, although primary legislation would be required to change the overcrowding standards.
  We are currently considering the best way to tackle the problem. We need to investigate the issues that surround overcrowding and the effect of a change to the current
  1154
  standards. My hon. Friend set out clearly the urgent need to address that serious problem, which impacts on many families in his constituency and elsewhere throughout London.
  Over the next two years we are injecting an extra £300 million above current levels into London's social housing. Even with the massive increase in investment in London's housing since Labour came to power, it is clear that it will not be possible to fill the gap by public subsidy alone.
  No one agency and no one measure will solve the problem. Our aim is to think creatively about how to make a difference. Private funds in the form of planning gain are already providing more than 2,000 affordable units in London each year, but we need to ensure that we are obtaining best value for money from public funds and private sector contributions, so we need to make better use of existing housing, whether in the social or the private sector, and we need to provide more sites on which affordable housing can be built.
  We can learn greatly from the good practice that is being piloted in some London boroughs and some of the models that they are pioneering of partnership developments involving the public and private sector, to create high-standard affordable homes in which Londoners want to live. That will also provide sustainable communities.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the range of disadvantage experienced by people in his constituency. It was in recognition of that type of disadvantage and the urgent need to address it that the Government introduced the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, and the new deal for the community. My hon. Friend has a new deal project in his constituency.
  In conclusion, the Government have inherited some major problems with the housing stock in London and throughout the country. We inherited a backlog in the funding needed just to bring housing up to a reasonable standard, and a need to improve standards in regulation. However, we have taken structural steps to increase the funding to tackle the most pressing problems, specifically of homelessness and of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and have looked to a range of measures to improve people's rights to housing and access to housing.
  I am confident that we will provide some of the solutions to the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned. I am sure that the conference tomorrow and the discussions that flow from it will be a major step forward in finding some of the strategic solutions that will apply across London and the measures that will benefit my hon. Friend's constituency. I believe that the debate has highlighted some very important issues and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Nine o'clock.

  CORRECTION
  Official Report, 6 February 2002; In col. 989, leave out "Gareth Thomas (Clwyd W)" and insert "Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)"
Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Child Health and Maternity
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I welcome the debate this afternoon. Maternity and child health is a vital issue. It forms a huge part of the work of the national health service and has a wide Government and community purpose. Improving the health of our children was part of the motivation for establishing the national health service and it has been important over centuries of public health. The well-being of our nation's children is of particular importance to the Government, who are committed to giving each child the best start in life.
The health and well-being of a child are the key to helping that child achieve his or her full potential. Each child and young person deserves the best possible start in life and to be brought up in a safe, happy and secure environment. Children deserve to be consulted, listened to, heard and supported as they develop into adulthood and maturity. By investing in the health of our children, we will have healthier adults.
Children's health is closely linked to, and impacts on, many other aspects of children's lives. Perhaps more tangibly than at any other stage in our lives, social, emotional and educational development are closely linked to health in childhood. That is especially true throughout pregnancy and in the years when children are very young. Health in the early years can affect health throughout life, and health problems that develop in childhood can haunt people throughout their lives. Deep-rooted health inequalities in society often stem not only from childhood but from what happens in pregnancy.
The Acheson report was commissioned soon after the 1997 election to examine health inequalities across the board. It was the first time that such an assessment had been carried out for 20 years. It concluded:
"For every child there must be an equal start in health and in life, because health at the beginning of life is the foundation for health throughout life."
Fundamental inequalities impact on the health of young people. The blunt truth is that a boy born to a low-income family at the end of the 20th century can expect to live, on average, seven years less than his classmate from a professional background. Babies born to low-income families are more likely to have low birth weight, which will have an impact on their health and education for many years. For example, low birth weight babies develop high blood pressure by the age of 11, thus increasing the risk of heart disease later in life.
Improving health in pregnancy and childhood involves the NHS, public health and wider initiatives from the Government and the community. Substantial progress has been made in all those areas, but we still
318WH
have considerably more to do. I shall refer to some of the key areas where progress has been made. I wish also to highlight some of the challenges that will face us in the future. Maternity and child health is a massive subject, so I do not pretend that I can cover all the issues involved comprehensively. However, I shall be happy to respond to any particular worries that hon. Members have.
The main measure under which improvements can be made to maternity and child health in the next few years is the national service framework—the NSF—for children. NSFs have been developed in respect of coronary heart disease, mental health and cancer. They are the mechanism for improvement, reform and investment in the national health service, and they establish national standards and set out priorities for change. That is why I am so pleased that we are now developing the NSF for children.
In July last year, the children's national clinical director, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, was appointed to spearhead the development of the NSF. Like other national service frameworks, it will be developed by teams of people drawn from social care, the voluntary sector, the national health service and parent groups. Young people will also be involved in establishing the priorities and national standards as part of the NSF.
The NSF will implement many of the recommendations in the Kennedy response to the Bristol tragedy that specifically relate to children and hospital services. Because the NSF has such a wide range of topics to cover, we decided to adopt a modular approach. The module dealing with hospital services will be delivered this year. The NSF offers the most important opportunity in terms of future developments, but it must build on the progress that we have already made. I will outline some of the areas in which progress has been made, but important challenges lie ahead.
Wider issues that go beyond the NHS have a huge impact on children's health. One of the most obvious of those is the child poverty target, which falls outside much of the work done by the NHS. However, meeting that target and taking every child out of poverty within a generation will probably do more than anything else to improve children's health and tackle health inequalities.
Other direct programmes and measures supporting children and children's health also go beyond the NHS. For example, the sure start programme, which aims to improve the health and well-being of families and children from before birth through to the age of four, also looks ahead to their futures.
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the sure start programme, so I hope the Minister will not think that I am carping. However, I feel very strongly about how my constituents are affected. My constituency contains an area that would easily qualify for the sure start programme if it were bigger, but because it is only part of one ward, it is difficult for the people living there to access any services or sure start money. They face an uphill struggle. Will the Minister introduce a scheme to ease that problem?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The current sure start model applies to areas of a particular size. They tend to be urban and are assessed

319WH
on the basis of the level of deprivation. The programmes are community based and look at different services operating together and concentrate on working with parents to improve opportunities for families with children under the age of four. This is the first time that there has been a real focus on the under-fours that examines how the different agencies work together. That could have a huge impact on those children.
The hon. Lady is right to suggest that the main sure start model that is implemented throughout the country applies only to certain types of communities—those of a particular size or level of deprivation. One of the challenges facing us in terms of where we go next with sure start is to determine what we can do about smaller pockets of deprivation and about those who live on low incomes in wealthy areas. Such people may also suffer from disadvantage and deprivation.
Sure start currently reaches a third of children under the age of four who live in poverty.
2.39 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.54 pm
On resuming—
Yvette Cooper: To continue the discussion on sure start, I believe that problems are faced not only by families who live in pockets of deprivation but by low-income families in other areas. Sure start will reach one third of children under four who live in poverty. Many children who live in poverty do not reside in poor areas—or in poor areas that are large enough to conform to the current sure start criteria.
To address that problem, we have begun piloting work in smaller pockets of deprivation and in rural areas. Thirteen sure start programmes are currently operating in rural areas and they are addressing the different challenges posed by deprivation in such communities. We are also investing £22 million to establish 15 mini sure start programmes that are intended to reach 7,500 children under four years of age who live in rural areas or pockets of deprivation. I will happily write to the hon. Lady to give her more details about how that initiative will develop. However, she also rightly referred to the longer-term challenge. Sure start has been very successful, and its principles must now be mainstreamed, so that we can offer effective support to families on low incomes throughout the country.
In addition to sure start, action is being taken to prevent teenage pregnancies. They are a reflection of social inequality. The risk of becoming a teenage mother is almost 10 times higher for a girl from a poor family than it is for a girl from a wealthy background. In 1999, almost one in 20 girls in England aged 15 to 17 became pregnant. That has huge health consequences, because the infant mortality rate for babies born to teenage mothers is more than 50 per cent. higher than the average, and the rate for babies born to mothers of under 18 years of age is more than double the average. There is also an increased risk of maternal mortality.
320WH
The teenage pregnancy strategy has operated throughout the country, providing local partnerships to reduce teenage pregnancy. The early signs are positive. Teenage conception rates are falling. The conception rate for girls aged under 18 has been falling for the past eight quarters. It fell by 4 per cent. in 1998 and 1999, and the conception rate for girls aged under 16 years of age fell by 7 per cent. in that period.
Another programme operating outside the NHS that works to improve children's health is the children's fund, which will provide £450 million over three years. It supports a wide range of services that help to prevent children and their families from suffering the consequences of poverty. Bad health is one of those consequences.
There is much to be proud of in the programmes that I have mentioned. Work in local communities is starting to have a positive impact on the health of children and families. One of our challenges for the future is to integrate that work with other services and support for children and young people. Another challenge is to apply those programmes—and the lessons that they teach us about the strategies that make the greatest difference—to every area in the country. I have already referred to that objective in my remarks on sure start.
I shall now consider how the NHS can play a greater role. Pregnancy is an issue in which I have had a personal interest over the past few years. The interesting thing about being a pregnant Member of Parliament— as I am sure that other hon. Members who have been in that situation will testify—is that one experiences maternity services in different parts of the country. When I was heavily pregnant, I started to work out where the hospitals and maternity units were located along the GNER route between London and my constituency just in case I were to require rapid admission to one of them.
Access to supportive antenatal care during pregnancy is essential. It can make a huge impact on subsequent health. Evidence of that is provided by the recent confidential inquiry reports into maternal deaths and into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. It suggests that there is a direct link between poor antenatal care and poor outcomes for mothers and babies, including premature birth and low birth weight. Although such babies often suffer from complications immediately after birth, they also frequently suffer from far-reaching health and developmental problems.
Pre-term births are most common where mothers are very young, have poor health, are poorly nourished or smoke during pregnancy. Almost half neonatal deaths are linked to conditions of immaturity, which is why we must work to continue to improve antenatal services across the board and address risk factors, such as smoking during pregnancy.
Sure start programmes are doing much to improve maternity services and outreach for neonatal care, especially for people in low-income areas. Additionally, specific support is available for the many pregnant women who wish to give up smoking. The NHS pregnancy smoking helpline has been set up to give advice and support to women who wish to give up smoking. Dedicated support is being developed in every area. In sure start areas, programmes aim to reduce the number of pregnant smokers by 10 per cent. by 2004.

321WH
Of course, we must improve not only antenatal care but care during labour and the critical post-natal period. The Government are working with the Royal College of Midwives to expand the number of midwives who work in the NHS, and to improve women's choices and control over their care during pregnancy and labour. Our most recent survey showed that nine out of 10 women were happy with the services that they received during pregnancy and childbirth. However, we know that there are wide variations in the care that people receive.
We recognise that we need more midwives in the NHS. We are committed to recruiting and training an additional 2,000 midwives over the next five years, and 500 of them should be working in the NHS by the end of the year. The NSF will build on that.
In addition to improving standards of clinical care, we are investing £100 million over two years in a capital programme to improve the environment in more than 200 maternity units. The money will pay for major refurbishments, new facilities for fathers and families, and the modernisation of antenatal units. More than 80 units will receive better bereavement facilities.
National standards on inductions, caesareans and other matters are being developed through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I hope that I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Beard, to make a speech in which I shall suggest how the Minister may allocate some of the money to expand maternity services. I flag up the real problem of recruitment of maternity nurses and midwives in London. Can she throw any light on further initiatives that her Department, perhaps in collaboration with other Departments with responsibility for public sector workers, may introduce such as rents-to-mortgage packages or other residential accommodation?
Yvette Cooper: Recruitment is a serious issue. My hon. Friend knows that many of his concerns apply not only to midwives but to nurses. There are areas in the south-east, especially London, in which the cost of housing and living is high, and such areas may suffer the greatest pressures. An immense amount of work has been done to improve recruitment, and that has been successful in recruiting additional nurses. We must apply the lessons that we learned from that to midwives. Work has been under way in the past year or so with the Royal College of Midwives to ensure that we apply to midwives the techniques that were successful for nurses. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall say more about that when I wind up.
As part of the NSF, we must build a framework of national standards for our maternity services and the care that women, their new babies and families receive. That has huge potential. Many people who are involved in care or who have used services throughout the country are participating in drawing up and developing the maternity services module of the NSF.
There are excellent examples throughout the NHS of the provision of greater support and information for women and their partners. However, we know that some families are greatly frustrated because they do not receive the care that they want.
322WH
We must build on the work that is being done to improve screening for children, such as the introduction of newborn hearing screening during the first few days of a baby's life. The programme is being piloted with a view to rolling it out nationally. Early detection of deafness allows parents and children to obtain the treatment and support that they need at a much earlier stage. That can help a person's development throughout childhood and later life.
Mr. David Drew: I declare an interest inasmuch as several of my children were born at Stroud maternity hospital so I have some expertise in the subject. I attended the retirement of one of the midwives, Jo Moon, a week ago. Stroud is unusual in that it has one of the two remaining midwife-led units in the south-west. How does my hon. Friend view the debate about what women want—the choice to use midwife-led services—and safety and other issues that consultants tend to push in more acute child delivery settings?
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Midwife-led maternity care has huge value. There is a focus on midwives and their work in all maternity units, whether they involve consultants or are separate. The role of midwives in leading care can be critical. There are examples throughout the country of midwife-led units that are hugely popular with the women and families who attend them, who receive the choice and care that they want in maternity services. We need to increase choice for women in maternity care, and midwife-led units are an important part of that. That is one of the issues that we shall consider as part of the maternity services element of the national service framework.
In advance of that, we have a maternity work force working group that involves members of the royal colleges—the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Anaesthetists—and representatives of maternity groups, including the Maternity Alliance and the National Childbirth Trust. One of the issues that it is examining is how to provide safe, high-quality care in different settings and establish standards that apply in different settings in order to ensure that whatever the setting and the arrangements we can ensure that women and their babies and families receive the high-quality care that they need. I hope that that will provide a more secure framework for the development of different models of care that allow for women's choice.
Immunisation is a further important aspect of child health. We have made huge progress in the eradication or decline of some terrible diseases that in previous centuries killed hundreds of children in this country. Our immunisation programme has been largely responsible for the most immense improvements in children's health, and we should be proud of it. It has saved many lives and prevented much serious morbidity throughout the country. Living at the beginning of the 21st century, many of us take for granted those health improvements and not having to worry about the infectious diseases that haunted families in previous centuries.

323WH
Hon. Members will be aware of the current debate about MMR—the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. I shall say a couple of words because it is so relevant, but I shall not dwell on it unless Members want to discuss it, and I shall return to it in my reply.
The strong medical advice given to the Government is that MMR is the safest way to immunise children against some very deadly diseases. We are advised that the evidence considered by countless independent committees shows no link between MMR and autism. Of course research must always be thoroughly scrutinised and examined by independent committees, and it is. Along with the royal colleges and medical experts from all over the world, 90 countries recommend MMR as the safest way to immunise children.
Sandra Gidley: I support the MMR programme. Does the Minister accept that there may not be a statistically proven link, but there is powerful anecdotal evidence of a link between administering the vaccine and the development of autism? That tiny risk, if there is one, must be considered in the context of the risk of death from measles and other childhood diseases if children are not vaccinated. It is a comparison of risks that—
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): Order. This is becoming a rather long intervention.
Yvette Cooper: The medical evidence that I have received does not say that. This is not simply about balancing the risks presented by particular diseases; it is about examining all the evidence. The clear advice from the chief medical officer and the Royal Colleges is that the evidence shows that there is no link between MMR and autism.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Is it not dangerous to get into anecdotal evidence? The scientific evidence demonstrates amply that there is no link in 99 per cent. of cases, and MMR has been recommended by people in the medical profession. We should take their wise counsel on this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be dangerous to suggest for even a nano-second that we should be guided by the anecdotal evidence?
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. In the end, all that we can go on is the evidence that we have. In some matters the evidence is limited and we have to be careful about what we say and not protest too much or claim that we know things when we simply do not. For example, there is simply not enough evidence to make claims about how safe or unsafe it is for children to use mobile phones, which is why the chief medical officer has given cautionary advice to parents on that. However, there is considerable evidence about MMR. No Government can ever give guarantees about any form of medical treatment, but we can look at all the evidence, which, according to our best medical advice, shows no link between MMR and autism.
Ms Julia Drown: Is it not true that a rise in autism occurred before the MMR vaccine was
324WH
introduced and there was no change after its introduction? One of the things that fuels the concerns is that people start to notice autism in children at exactly the same age as the vaccine is given. Autism is an awful thing, and one can understand parents wanting to attach something to it. That may be why we are having this debate when, as the Minister says, the scientific evidence clearly favours MMR as the safest option.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The number of diagnosed cases of autism was increasing before MMR was introduced. It has continued to increase since then and, even though the levels of MMR have remained stable, the number of reported cases of autism has increased. She is also right that problems can start to emerge and be diagnosed at a similar age to the age at which children receive the MMR vaccination.
One important point that can get lost is that we need to know more about the causes of autism. We have quite a bit of evidence about MMR and autism, which has concluded that there is no link. We need more evidence on what the other causes might be because there is too much anxiety, albeit completely understandable, about autism among parents, particularly those with children suffering from autism. The Medical Research Council has done a major review of the research into autism to point out where further research is needed. That research is taking place. That is an important part of the work that we do here.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: May I ask the Minister to comment specifically on autism? We need more research into how autism develops and what are the best solutions for carers of children with the condition. More funding is needed for packages of support for carers and children.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. There have been many discussions about the causes of autism and about the right kind of treatment, intervention and support that families with autistic children need. Autism is one of a small number of key issues that we want to trace through the national service framework for children. Maternity and other services should be considered not in isolation but in the light of case studies of conditions such as autism, which would benefit hugely from being tackled through the national service framework.
Other forms of immunisation have made a big difference. The meningitis C vaccination programme was a huge success and is a great tribute to the NHS. School nurses, GPs, health visitors and nurses throughout the country delivered the meningitis C vaccination programme at immense speed. The UK was the first country to develop the vaccine and the first to implement it so rapidly.
In 1998, meningitis C caused an estimated 1,500 cases of meningitis, with 150 deaths, mainly of young children and teenagers. The new vaccine has resulted in a reduction of the disease of up to 90 per cent. in the main immunised groups.
Improving children's health means considering issues involving diet, nutrition exercise and health in the early years. The national school fruit scheme will offer every infant school child a free piece of fruit each day in

325WH
school. More than 80,000 children between the ages of four and six are already benefiting from the scheme, which will cover all of the west midlands region in the summer and later be extended throughout the country. It is the most ambitious programme to improve childhood nutrition since the introduction of free school milk in 1946. Experts say that children should eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but on average they eat only two portions and children in low-income areas eat one or none.
Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the benefit of measures to reduce food poverty? Governments get nervous about targeting and targets, but if there was more joined-up thinking and action between health, education and other Departments we could eradicate child poverty. It would improve people's quality of life if they could eat better food.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. There is a potential for health services to work with others, perhaps as part of local strategic partnerships, especially in neighbourhood renewal areas, and that could make a huge difference. There are some good examples from the five-a-day programme and community-based programmes to improve access to healthy food. They will be expanded using funding from the new opportunities fund in the next few years.
For older children, improving health can be part of personal, social and health education in schools, and the healthy schools programme can help them to avoid the risks of drugs, alcohol and pregnancy later on. We need to consider not only the needs of healthy children and how to keep them healthy but the needs of children who become sick. Most children will suffer some illness in their lives, perhaps one of the common childhood illnesses, which can be handled by parents or with the help of the primary care sector, but some, sadly, require more intensive and specialist care in hospital. I know from personal experience that NHS Direct can be a huge reassurance for parents. The 24-hour nurse-led telephone helpline assists callers to access the right service at the right time—perhaps at night or during the weekend. Five to 10 per cent. of the calls relate to children under 12 months and 20 per cent. relate to children under five. That is a hugely useful resource for anxious parents who want advice on the necessary care when a child is ill.
When children become critically ill, they need immediate attention from those skilled in caring for children. Improvements began to be made in paediatric intensive care with the introduction of the paediatric intensive care strategy in 1997, and an additional £60 million has since been invested in the strategy. Key improvements have been the development of lead paediatric intensive care centres for the most critically ill children and of retrieval teams to collect children and take them to those specialist centres, which have staff expert in caring for sick children. However, we need to go further by expanding our capacity and also considering neonatal intensive care.
Children with life-limiting illnesses require particular specialist support. They may be ill for many years and need constant care day and night. Eight Diana nurse teams provide a range of palliative care support to children at home. In addition, children who need
326WH
palliative care will shortly benefit from £48 million that has been made available from the new opportunities fund to provide respite care in the home, the community and hospices.
Disabled children are a priority in the "quality protects" programme. I am talking about work with some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in society, who may need additional support from social services, education services and local authorities.
It is not simply a question of physical illness. We must ensure that mental health and well-being are maintained and promoted in schools and elsewhere. A recent survey shows that 20 per cent. of five to 15-year-olds have a mental health problem, and 10 per cent. of that age group have a mental health disorder that significantly affects their ability to lead a normal life. Access to high-quality mental health services is essential for those children. The NHS plan and the mental health national service framework have set out an ambitious programme of change, which will have a major impact on child and adolescent mental health services. However, we are starting from a low base, and services need to be expanded. That is why it is vital that the children's NSF take forward the work that has been done to make a real difference.
There is much to do across the NHS, social services and the community to improve children's health and to involve parents, children and young people in their care. The NHS needs to work in a spirit of openness, as the tragedy at Bristol and Professor Kennedy's report have again highlighted. Special efforts and new thinking will be required to implement many of his general recommendations in services for children. The quality of care must be improved, which is why the work of the paediatric cardiac review group, which is picking up on the Kennedy report, is particularly important. The group is due to report this spring.
We have made substantial progress in improving children's health, but we need to recognise that new problems and challenges emerge and that we can do much more. The NSF provides us with a great opportunity to take forward the good work that is being done, but which is often too fragmented. That is vital for children and parents, as this week has shown.
There have been immense improvements in children's health in terms of the dreadful childhood diseases that killed so many in the past. We have improved treatment, diagnosis and vaccinations. In the past, childhood cancers killed many, but this country is now expert in treating them and leads the world in many respects. We must not turn the clock back. We have made huge progress, but we have a long way to go. I hope that the next few years will provide a great opportunity to improve maternity services and children's health.
3.23 pm
Tim Loughton: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Beard. I think that this is the first time that I have spoken in Westminster Hall under your chairmanship and I am sure that it will be a pleasure.
I echo the Minister's words of welcome for this debate on child health and maternity. I cannot speak as a pregnant Member of Parliament, but I can speak as the husband of a previously pregnant MP's wife. Indeed,

327WH
I was speaking in the Chamber when my pager went off to tell me that my wife was going through the first pangs of producing one of our children, so I know the cut and thrust of this place and how it affects our family existence.
It may be slightly ironic that I am speaking for the Opposition today as a representative of Worthing, which has the oldest population in the country and might be thought the furthest away from child and maternity matters. However, I am a father of three children and I have two excellent hospitals—the Worthing and the Southlands—in my constituency, so I speak with some experience.
It is appropriate that our debate takes place just a week before Valentine's day, when Great Ormond street hospital celebrates its 150th birthday. Few better centres of excellence for child care exist anywhere and the hospital is internationally renowned.
As the Minister said, this is an enormous subject, to which neither the Government or the Opposition will be able to do full justice. I shall focus on maternity services, the sure start programme, the national service framework— particularly with respect to mental health—and, more topically, immunisation.
I stress from the outset that we welcome the NSF for children's health. The test of its success and thoroughness, however, will not be how many committees sit to arrange and organise it or how many tsars for children's health are appointed, but the real health improvements during children's crucial early stages that result from it. As the children's tsar, Professor Aynsley-Green, said, we have possibly the best chance in 50 years to put children's lives and health at the centre of Government policy. We welcome that, though it is a considerable task to live up to. The NSF is comprehensive, embracing maternity and social services; prevention, care and treatment; support for children with disabilities; transition to adult services, which are a particularly grey area; and children and adolescent mental health services.
I am pleased that the Minister spent some time dealing with that difficult mental health sector, which the NSF covers. This country has a big gap in mental health services, especially for children and adolescents. The United Kingdom population includes about 14.9 million children and younger people under 20—some 25 per cent. of the population—and it is estimated that at any one time, 20 per cent. of them experience psychological problems. The majority who experience such problems face difficulties that could be made much better by early intervention, which does not happen enough.
A consensus exists among professionals that substantial increases in the psychological disorders of youth—not just in this country but worldwide—have occurred since the second world war. Risk factors such as poor education outcomes and antisocial behaviour overlap considerably with later mental health difficulties, but we face big gaps in provision for dealing with those problems. Young people who are caught in the gap between services for children and those for adults acutely feel the lack of specialist provision across the spectrum of child and adolescent mental health services.
328WH
Difficulty gaining access to specialist health care is a problem. Young people with mental health problems can be placed on adult hospital wards because they are the only provision available in the area. The young people often describe that experience as frightening and disorienting. Excessive use of drugs as a chemical cosh—instead of the one-to-one personal care that they desperately need—is another major problem.
For some time mental health provision in this country has been too patchy; mental health services for children and adolescents leave a great deal to be desired. We now have an opportunity to deal with the vast gaps in children's provision.
As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, I welcome the inclusion of autism in the NSF. I shall not go into further detail, however, because we debated the subject a few weeks ago to celebrate the start of national autism awareness year.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made a comment about better services for carers. Early intervention is absolutely essential. We have no standard detection system in this country to pick up cases of autism and provide appropriate care at an early age. As the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) rightly mentioned, autism has been increasing for many years or, rather, detection of it has because we now know more about it. However, we still do not know nearly enough, and we need to spend more time and resources finding out about it. There is no obvious link between vaccinations and incidents of autism.
There are three problems with maternity services. There are big variations in the standard of service across the country, there is still a shortage of midwives, and there are moves towards greater use of caesarean section, which has caused increasing alarm.
We welcomed the "Good Birth Guide"— an interesting title for a report; it is not quite the "Good Wine Guide"—which was produced in January. It gives a guide to maternity hospitals and is by Dr. Foster, an independent group. It is interesting that it is not just big city hospitals with midwives who have heavy work loads that experience problems. The report reveals that there are 21 hospitals in which more than one baby is born per delivery bed a day. That means that some pressured units are operating in conditions of substantial overcrowding. Roger Taylor, the editor of the guide, said:
"Mothers have a right to consistent standards wherever they live."
Ipswich hospital was top of the league table, and has a delivery rate of 1.3 babies per bed a day. That overcrowding gives many maternity departments in hospitals a production-line feel. That is not the only consideration when measuring the effectiveness of such departments; in many cases, the delivery rate reflects the efficient intervention of midwives at home with mothers who arrive at hospital only when they have reached the advanced stages of labour.
I speak from experience. I took my wife to Chelsea and Westminster hospital for the birth of our second child, and we were caught on the underground car park ramp with the "car park full" sign blazing when things were getting close. I had to reverse up the ramp with cars behind me to dump my wife. When I returned, having

329WH
parked the car, she was in labour and gave birth some 20 minutes later, so I know that there are different ways of giving birth. I am sure that the Minister did not experience such alarming incidents.
The criticism has been made that general practitioners tend to book women into the nearest big hospital, and do not always discuss with them the availability of smaller community hospitals and midwife-led units, which are to be greatly praised. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to such a unit in his constituency. Big is not always best. There is still too much of a maternity lottery in the provision of services.
I think that it was the Minister who last summer announced a shake-up of maternity services, which would result in continuous one-to-one care for every woman during childbirth. We welcomed that. That was to be done, first, by means of a £100 million plan to recruit 2000 extra midwives and modernise childbirth services—perhaps an ambitious target. Secondly, national standards were to be set up by 2003, giving women maximum choice in type of delivery and support. Thirdly, there were to be improved facilities to enable fathers to play a full role in births, and more sensitive treatment for bereaved parents in maternity wards. We praise those objectives.
It had been announced previously—on 2 May 2001—that there were to be more midwives and more money for maternity. It was said:
"Every maternity unit will receive a share of a new £100m fund for their childbirth facilities".
On 10 October 2001, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), announced that maternity units would receive £100 million. Was that a treble announcement of the same money, or was new money being announced on each of those three occasions? I should take a stab at the former solution.
There is a crisis in midwife recruitment in maternity services. It might be better to judge the work load of maternity services by the number of babies delivered by a midwife in a year. It is generally agreed that the maximum figure should be 35. At Wexham Park hospital, the figure is as high as 51. At St. Peter's hospital, Chertsey in Surrey, it is 49 and, at the King George hospital maternity department, it is 45. That means that there is a greater possibility that a midwife will have to deal with more than one woman in labour at any one time. Research shows that women do better with one-to-one care. Last month, Louise Silverton, the deputy general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, said that the figures showed how precarious and under-resourced the service was. There are still few returners to midwifery. The Minister put forward an ambitious bid to recruit 2,000 new midwives.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Did my hon. Friend notice that the Minister made no mention of the return-to-practice scheme that was launched in February 2001? Many of the representations that I have received make it clear that work load pressures are one of the reasons why some midwives have left the profession. It is important to ensure that such pressures
330WH
are dealt with inside the profession before that return-to-practice scheme is successful. Clearly, it has not been successful over the past year.
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is all very well trying to recruit new midwives as, indeed, we need to do, but far greater efforts with nursing generally need to be made to retain experienced midwives. Genuine, practical moves must be made to make the profession more attractive to experienced midwives who may wish to return. Louise Silverton said that returners were few, and that remains the case.
Will the Minister confirm my figures? In 1997, the number of whole-time equivalent midwives was 18,050. At the end of 2001—the last date for which figures are available—that figure was unchanged at 18,050. We were still 2,000 short. Even the head count, which is the Government's favoured measure, does not deal with the problem. If more midwives are working shorter hours, the problem still exists. In 1995, the head count was 20,020; in 2001, it was 23,080. However, the whole-time equivalent is the crucial figure.
Let us consider the qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff numbers and break them down into areas of work, as the Government do. In the September 2001 NHS work force census, the whole-time equivalent figure in 1996 was 23,190 and, in 2001, it had fallen to 22,680. Worryingly, those figures show not only that there have been no increases in the number of full-time midwives but that there has been a fall in the number of staff in related midwifery services. It certainly casts doubts on the ambitions of the Minister.
There are especially big shortages in certain parts of the country, not least in London and the south-east. The average age of midwives is getting older, and that suggests that there is a problem with new recruits entering the profession after training. Does the Minister have the latest recruitment figures for London and the south-east? What improvements of choice are now available to women in maternity wards? What special considerations have been made for women from ethnic minorities in London? Perhaps the Minister could comment on what help has been received in the southeast for housing for maternity staff and say whether any of them have been included in the keyworker housing scheme.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the National Childbirth Trust published a report on caesarean sections in October last year. It revealed that 21.5 per cent. of women were giving birth surgically. That is an alarmingly high figure. In Northern Ireland, the figure was 23 per cent.; in London and Wales it is as high as 25 per cent. That is a six-fold increase since the 1970s, when the average figure was about 4 per cent. It is nearly double the figure that was recommended by the World Health Organisation. More than half the obstetricians surveyed admitted that caesarean section rates in their units were too high. Mary Newburn, head of policy research for the National Childbirth Trust, says:
"Caesareans are unnecessary surgery which increase health risks for women and babies, including haemorrhage, decreased fertility and problems with subsequent pregnancies."
Why, then, are rates so high? Of the total number of caesareans, 7 per cent. are elective—a trend increasingly encouraged by celebrities such as Victoria Beckham and

331WH
Patsy Kensit. There is something of a culture of women who are "too posh to push" and who opt for the convenience of choosing the time to produce their baby before returning to work, a drinks party or whatever it is that is far more important to them. Also, more women are giving birth later in life, when there is a greater risk of needing an operation. More worryingly, many hospitals fear lawsuits if difficult births go wrong. As Bill Dunwoody from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says:
"Litigation is more likely to occur if a caesarean section has not been done."
That is not a good reason for promoting caesarean section.
There is evidence that electronic foetal monitoring has increased caesarean section rates without any long-term benefit to babies, suggesting that it is over-sensitive and inaccurate and that most women should not have it during labour. There is also a suggestion that pressure from doctors in under-staffed hospitals lacking midwife support and reassurance also discourages women from having natural births. My constituent was quoted in The Sun recently. Jenny Lesley now works for the NCT. She wanted to give birth naturally, but ended up having all three of her children by caesarean section. She says:
"The intervention rates are very high, particularly in London because staffing levels are so low…when obstetricians give more support to junior doctors, the intervention rate is lower."
The Minister mentioned sure start. In many ways, it is one of the better regeneration schemes. I visited a scheme in Hastings last year and saw a travelling play bus and a mobile health clinic. Several flats in a block had been knocked into one to create a centre for mothers in the middle of a deprived estate. At the centre, mothers could use the nursery facilities, see the district nurse or get medical help. It was very impressive. Although it had been open for only a few weeks when I visited, it was already a seething mass of people and was obviously appreciated.
As with most regeneration projects, sure start schemes, as the Minister said, are concentrated in urban areas. I hope that she will make a more detailed comment on the extension of the scheme to rural areas. As the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, under the current classification system, there are small wards of deprivation that do not qualify for such schemes because they lie side by side more affluent areas. That is a particular problem in parts of the south of England and around my constituency.
The sure start programme has targets to reach by 2004. The first is to reduce by 20 per cent. the number of children aged nought to three in the 500 programme areas who are re-registered on the child protection register within 12 months. That is a laudable aim but, as those of us who considered the Adoption and Children Bill know, the number of looked-after children has risen over the past few years and currently stands at 58,000. We therefore have an urgent task.
A second objective is to achieve a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of mothers who smoke during pregnancy. Again, we applaud that aim, but why is the gap widening between the number of young men and women smokers? It is much harder to persuade young women to give up smoking, so resources should be targeted to help with that problem.
332WH
Thirdly, sure start aims to achieve a reduction of 5 per cent. in the number of children with speech and language problems requiring specialist intervention by the age of four. There is an acute shortage of speech therapists, and that is one of the biggest gaps that we face. It is also difficult to determine which body is responsible for the provision of speech therapists—the local health service trust, social services or the education department attached to local county councils. Something of a vicious triangle, or buck-passing, exists between those three parties. We need joined-up thinking, especially given the intense pressure on social services departments throughout the country. They are spending £1 billion more than the Government think they ought to be spending and are given credit for in the standard spending assessments.
I welcome some of the targets and the thrust behind the sure start programme. However, will the Minister tell us the basis on which the success of sure start will be judged? Are the targets realistically attainable? What progress has been made to date?
I shall now consider immunisation and, especially, the MMR debate that is raging at present. I agree with everything that the Minister said on the subject, and I welcome the progress that has been made over the past 20 years on immunisation programmes, such as meningitis C and the other programmes before that. We have a good record of which we should be proud. That is why the current problems with MMR vaccinations are worrying.
I was surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, because the Liberal Democrat health spokesman seemed to say something different yesterday when he referred to an element of risk. The Minister is right to say that the issue is not about balancing risk, because there is no scientific evidence to suggest any link between the MMR vaccination and autism or other side effects.
The Minister and I are on record as saying that our children have had the MMR vaccination, and I have no difficulty repeating that point. As vice-chairman of the all-party group on autism, I say that it is imperative that parents should accept the MMR vaccination for their children. It is the best alternative on offer. It is not 100 per cent. risk free, but nothing is 100 per cent. risk free. The Minister drew a good analogy with mobile phones. Parents who have any doubts should be encouraged to give their children the MMR vaccination. That has always been our position, and it categorically remains so. We share the confidence of the British Medical Association, the royal colleges and the 35 European, north American and other countries that use the vaccination.
Sandra Gidley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton: I shall if the hon. Lady is willing to clarify her party's position.
Sandra Gidley: I was actually going to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify his party's position. I think that the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), is on record as saying that

333WH
there should be open access to the individual vaccines. That seems to be at odds with what the hon. Gentleman said.
Tim Loughton: That kind of misrepresentation is not helping the present debate. The fundamental point—this has always been the position of the Conservative party and its health spokesmen, and remained as such yesterday when we made a further announcement—is that no vaccination provides a better alternative to the MMR vaccination. We want all our constituents' children of a suitable age to have the MMR vaccination. We offered the Government a bipartisan approach two years ago when some "rogue" reports that cast doubts on the safety of the MMR vaccination were published. We offered to promote the message about the safety of the MMR vaccination and to point out that the dangers for a child who was not vaccinated were much greater than those for a child who had received the vaccination. We said that the MMR vaccination was as safe as it could possibly be, and that there was no concrete evidence to the contrary.
The simple reality is that the hon. Members in this Chamber do not need convincing. We must convince the public outside. The Government have given assurances over the past few months, but mixed messages have come from Ministers and, especially, from the Prime Minister, and those messages have led to misinformation and disinformation. The public have lost confidence in what they are told, and they are voting with their feet to such an extent that the vaccination rate is below 70 per cent. in parts of London.
Yvette Cooper: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully. I welcome his support for the medical advice that we have received about the importance of the MMR vaccination as the best way to immunise children. Does he believe that the Conservative party's call—not only this week, but over the past 12 months when records show that for much of the time coverage was 83 per cent.—for the introduction of separate jabs has contributed to what he described as a decline in confidence in the MMR jab?
Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is wrong. Until yesterday, our party's policy was that MMR was the only option. That remains the policy but, as from yesterday, we have said that single jabs should be available for those people who are not being vaccinated. That was not the position before yesterday when what we said was purely a response to the dangerously low take-up of the MMR vaccine.
Yvette Cooper: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that a year ago, before the last election, Conservative spokespeople called for separate jabs to be made available on the NHS?
Tim Loughton: Members on both sides of the House have called for separate jabs. Official Conservative party policy was to support MMR. Now, however, levels of cover are so low that a choice must be made available. MMR or nothing is not a choice. The difference between 70 per cent. and 95 per cent.—the former level, which needs to be achieved again—of 591,000 children leaves a gap of 25 per cent. That could mean that, according to
334WH
the prevailing figures, 148,000 or so children are not being vaccinated. That is the simple reality. Whatever the hon. Lady's assurances, and whatever the attempted assurances of the Prime Minister, which have patently failed, a number of children are not being vaccinated at the moment and have no cover. That is why something needs to be done.
Ms Drown: The hon. Gentleman said that different information was coming from the Government. I have seen nothing that is inconsistent. I should be grateful if he would clarify his remarks, because if he believes that there has been inconsistency, we need to clarify what he means. All the information has been absolutely consistent in saying that MMR is the best thing.
The hon. Gentleman himself recognises that MMR is the best thing. Does he not realise that, by saying that people should be allowed single vaccines, he is fuelling their concerns? A responsible Opposition would say exactly what he said earlier—that MMR is clearly the safest way of protecting children.
Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady misses the point. Before yesterday vaccination levels in parts of the country had fallen to less than 70 per cent. No fuelling of concerns was required; the problem is already raging out there. Many people are sufficiently worried to take the option of no vaccination. The most irresponsible thing would be for us to allow parents to go ahead without providing any vaccination cover for their children, but that is what is happening.
Measles is not a soft option, and I make one criticism in particular. We have not made enough of the danger of mumps and rubella and especially of measles, which is a killer and can cause serious brain damage. A few weeks ago, I met the 41-year-old son of a constituent. He caught measles as a baby and has been brain damaged to the extent that he has been unable to communicate ever since. The dangers need to be rather better communicated. Some people still seem to believe that measles is a soft option. It is not.
Ms Drown: The hon. Gentleman points out the dangers of measles. If the Opposition are to recommend single vaccines, what order and what intervals between them will he recommend? He also knows about the huge dangers of rubella and the damage that it can cause. Mumps is one of the biggest causes of viral meningitis, and we do not need to describe how awful that is. Have the Opposition thought through their policy? They do not seem to have done so.
Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady makes my case for me. However, she is happy with the status quo in which 30 per cent. of the children in some parts of the country—that is the equivalent of up to 150,000 children—will have no vaccination and no protection against the horrendous diseases and symptoms that she mentions. That is the reality of the situation to which we must respond. It would be highly irresponsible to do nothing.
Yvette Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton: I wish to make progress, as many hon. Members wish to speak.

335WH
I gather that the chief medical officer remarked that single jabs are equivalent to Russian roulette. That is an irresponsible comment. People who have gone to the trouble to seek out—and pay for—individual jabs are now having doubts cast on the efficacy of that treatment. That fuels the public's concerns.
Nothing is more universally effective than the treble jab in one. The Conservative party has always said that, as have the Government. However, the public are not heeding our advice.
Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right about what our party has been saying. Before yesterday, the official Opposition's policy was to support the Government's assurances about the efficacy of the MMR vaccine, and the undesirability of the alternatives to it. Before the last general election, we consistently stated that we held to that policy because it was important to try to retain public confidence in the MMR vaccine. However, a new ethical question has now arisen: when does the principle of defending the MMR vaccine begin to be outweighed by the need to provide alternative protection to children whose parents will not accept it? However, I will not express my opinion on that at present.
Tim Loughton: That is a fair point when the safety of the MMR vaccine becomes a hot issue, and the vaccination rate falls below 70 per cent. Unsurprisingly, measles outbreaks are now occurring, and they cause much grief.
Dr. Kumar rose—
Yvette Cooper rose—
Tim Loughton: I am reaching the conclusion of my speech, and I am tempted to finish it. The Minister spoke at length, and many other hon. Members wish to contribute.
I reiterate that we urge everyone—our constituents, and every parent who is considering what to do—to choose the MMR vaccination for their children. There is no dispute about that between the Government and the Conservative party.
Yvette Cooper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he has generously allowed many interventions. However, I wish him to clarify one point. Is he saying that he rejects the advice of the chief medical officer, the British Medical Association, the royal colleges and the Faculty of Public Health Medicine? All of them have advised us that the introduction of separate jabs would reduce coverage—it would not increase it—and that it would increase the number of children who are exposed to deadly diseases.
Tim Loughton: It is clearly the case that, if the choice is between MMR and nothing, more people will be exposed if they do not choose the triple vaccination.
I have said all along that the triple vaccination is the best option; single jabs are not as effective. There are questions marks about the timings between them. There are also question marks about the licensing of
336WH
vaccinations that come from France and other countries, the way that they are administered and the charges for administering them. The Government must address those questions.
Despite the Minister's reassurances, hundreds of parents are telephoning private clinics to get hold of the individual vaccinations. How much less effective they are than the triple vaccination is a matter for debate, but they are better than nothing. The Government are currently offering all or nothing, which is the worst policy of all.
I have spoken for long enough but, not surprisingly, my final comments on MMR have been the most topical and contentious and will continue to be so. In practice, there is a crisis of confidence among many hundreds of thousands of our constituents, and we must restore that confidence to ensure that vaccination coverage is as thorough as possible.
This is an important debate. We are dealing with many complicated issues and, when it comes to children, we need a comprehensive approach. As I said, the measure of the success of the Government's programme will not be the number of committees and the structures that they set up, or the number of tsars whom they appoint, but the health improvement outcomes that result from it.
We all agree, I am sure, that the health of our nation's children is one of the most important aspects, if not the most important aspect, of the national health service and health care in this country. I welcome the contribution that this debate can make to raising the profile of these matters.
4 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I welcome this debate and the action that the Government are taking on maternity and children's services, particularly the emphasis on inequalities. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is committed to that.
I shall start by responding to the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The policy that the Opposition have dreamed up over the past week is outrageous and a serious matter, because of the potential implications—I need hardly say "potential"—for children.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a lack of confidence has been fuelled by irresponsible media stories, but the Opposition do not help by jumping on the bandwagon and trying to extract political advantage from it. That seems to be the only explanation for the Opposition's policy, because all the Front-Bench spokespersons, including the hon. Gentleman today, have clearly said that MMR is the best option. To suggest otherwise merely undermines confidence and fuels more unjustified speculation.
At a push, the Opposition could say that we may need to consider the issue if they talked about particular constituents who had read all the evidence, had received counselling and had come to particular decisions, but I would feel uncomfortable even with that. Having considered all the evidence, every major college, doctors, paediatricians, health visitors and all such bodies have clearly said that the best option is to stick with MMR.

337WH
The Opposition should be backing the Government. This issue should not be a political football because the health of thousands of children is at risk, and the Opposition have not answered my question. They have not given us their recommended timetable for when children should have the measles vaccination and those for rubella and mumps. Without that timetable, we do not know which ones they think people should be exposed to first. The Opposition's policy is risky. I hope that they will review it and return to the position that they held a while ago, which was to do the sensible thing by using the evidence that clearly exists and backing the Government's advice on MMR. There seems to be no other option if we are to protect children.
Mr. Lansley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but we have discussed the issue and we must keep various subjects in balance. I am on record as supporting MMR and I would say the same today; I would not be ambiguous about that. However, the hon. Lady and the Government must consider at what point the undermining of the MMR vaccine and the take-up level raise the question whether it has become safer for children and ethical to offer the single vaccine—admittedly, establishing protocols is intensely difficult—as compared with leaving the population wholly unprotected.
Ms Drown: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but it would be insane to say that we had reached that point. Take-up of the vaccine is still huge. We need everyone to back the evidence that is clearly there to create a balance. We must try to get the media to step back coolly and rationally to consider that evidence. If the Opposition could help us to do that, rather than proceeding in the other direction, we could make some progress and see the uptake increase again rather than decrease.
Tim Loughton: When the official Opposition offered the full weight of our party on a bipartisan approach to supporting MMR before the public at large, why was that rejected out of hand by the Minister and her colleagues? Why does she think that happened? Was our approach not helpful?
Ms Drown: I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to intervene.
I have heard nothing to suggest that we would not welcome support from the Opposition on that basis. There might be a debate about exactly how and what.
Yvette Cooper: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Opposition offered a bipartisan approach about two years ago? They were invited to an all-party group meeting with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and me. They never turned up and we have not heard from them since.
Ms Drown: I feel that I am beginning to chair this meeting.
Tim Loughton: The Minister knows that that is complete rubbish. This is not to be done through an all-party group. The shadow Secretary of State for Health went to see the Minister. Unqualified support was
338WH
offered, but it was never taken up. For her so to misconstrue those events is shameless and shows that she and her Department have been using this issue as a political football, not the Conservative party.
Ms Drown: We are getting into silly bickering about who did what and who said what. The real people who can suffer as a result of this issue are children. This is not a matter for laughter. There may be a debate about which meeting and whether people liked the exact proposal that was coming from one area or another. If anyone is cross about that, that is not a reason to change policy on such an important issue. Instead, we should keep going and say that we need to have more of a campaign and to try again. This is where politicians' pride, pigheadedness and arrogance get in the way of what is best for children. The Government have been clear throughout: they have said what is in the best interests of children, and that is MMR. The Opposition need to rethink their policy because they are putting children's health at risk.
I shall take the wise suggestion of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and move on to another important issue: maternity services. I start by paying tribute to all the staff in maternity services who do fantastic things throughout the country. I pay tribute also to all volunteers such as the National Childbirth Trust, the breast-feeding counsellors and the wider family networks that often have the greatest input into births and maternity services.
There are real issues of concern in maternity services, some not relating to Government policy. The Cumberledge report, which was produced under the last Conservative Government, showed a way forward for maternity services and was widely welcomed. Achieving some of those aims has been difficult and is not happening in so many places. A fundamental problem is that a medical model is applied to too many maternity services. Giving birth to a healthy baby, which should be a problem-free experience for most healthy women, in too many instances is turning into a major medical event. Medical events that are generally not justified by the evidence produce a worse experience for the mother and a cost to the NHS that far outweighs the cost of a less medicalised model. That is not to say that there are not many instances in which medical interventions are necessary, and generally the NHS is fantastic at dealing with those instances.
The most serious issue, raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, is the rising rate of caesareans that are not justified by the evidence. There is a huge variation in caesarean rates across the country; although sometimes they are clinically necessary, there are questions about whether the NHS offers the best treatment in areas where caesareans are not clinically justified. Obstetricians tell me of their concerns that caesareans that are not medically needed are hard to justify, yet they are carried out. Having a caesarean in such circumstances increases a woman's risk of dying by at least three, if not four or six, times. It also increases the risk of urinary infections, infertility problems and inflammation of the womb. The incidence of respiratory distress in babies is four times greater in elective caesareans than in a vaginal birth. There are serious questions to be asked about the rising rate of these operations.

339WH
Given that evidence, why does the Government-sponsored booklet that goes to all mums describe a caesarean section as "safe"? I appreciate that the Government want to give assurances to those women who have to have a caesarean because it is medically the best option, but it is major abdominal surgery and saying that it is safe, with few qualifications, may be a factor that encourages women to ask for a caesarean when it is not medically required.
Obstetricians in this country and abroad suggest that a caesarean should not even be offered as a choice when it is not medically indicated. The Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health, the international umbrella organisation of national obstetric organisations, states in a 1999 report that
"performing caesarean section for non-medical reasons is ethically not justified",
yet it is happening in this country.
This is a matter of serious concern, where more government action could produce better health outcomes. We could learn a lesson from Canada, where they have had some success in tackling the matter by focusing on and celebrating hospitals with low caesarean rates. In this country, midwife-led services that have produced lower caesarean rates could show how best to make improvements.
Caesareans are the most serious form of intervention in childbirth, but there are also questions to be asked about other interventions. The real problem is having a doctor-led rather than a midwife-led service. There is good, scientific research that shows that when doctors, rather than midwives, attend low-risk hospital births, unnecessary interventions increase and women's satisfaction decreases. In New Zealand, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, more than 80 per cent. of women see only midwives during pregnancy and birth, either in or out of hospital, and they have some of the lowest maternal and perinatal mortality rates in the world, which suggests that lowering intervention rates and having a more midwife-led service could help us.
The definitive study of the safety of midwife-attended birth, which was published in 1998, took account of all births in one year in the United States—more than 4 million births. It considered only singleton, vaginal births, removed social and medical risk factors and compared outcomes between midwife-led births and physician-attended births. Compared with physician-attended births, midwife-attended births had a 19 per cent. lower infant mortality rate, a 33 per cent. lower neonatal mortality rate, and a low birth-weight rate that was 31 per cent. lower. That is clear evidence of the need for midwives to be in the forefront of the service.
Birthing centres such as those in Edgware and Crowborough have great success in letting the midwife lead the service and have better health outcomes, lower caesarean rates, high breast-feeding rates and much higher satisfaction for the families involved. The other great spin-off is that the midwife's job is so much better and there is no problem with recruitment. Indeed, Edgware still has a waiting list of people wanting to work as midwives there. Once again, letting midwives lead the service brings further benefits.
340WH
A midwife-led service should also allow more women to experience home births. I receive letters throughout the country from women pleading for home births, but facing health authorities that refuse to help by providing a midwife in support. The evidence clearly shows that home births are safe, if not safer than hospital births. The National Birthday Trust survey of 6,000 home births found that outcomes were just as good as from hospital births and that women's satisfaction levels were much higher. With fully trained midwives, a home birth should be a feasible option—particularly for low-risk women, but also for many others currently denied that choice. If we could lower the caesarean rate, finding the resources to ensure sufficient midwives to meet women's choices would not be such a problem.
I mentioned the letters that I receive from women wanting home births. I also received a letter that arrived last year when we were discussing regulations affecting the Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Home births were debated then and the fine imposed on medically unqualified people attending home births was increased. The Government have not yet clarified the issue, however, because some women who had lost confidence in hospital births were going ahead with a home birth, irrespective of whether a midwife could be provided. Some were confident in the ability of the husband to attend the birth but, because they were worried about the fines, they intended to send their husbands out of their homes and give birth alone—a seriously dangerous prospect. Will the Government make it clear that the regulations were intended to fine not people trying to help with home births but people who impersonate midwives?
I have dealt with where and how women want to give birth and move on briefly to discuss the delivery of care. Much of the difference between a good and a bad birth experience lies in the manner in which the care is delivered. One-to-one midwifery care is clearly crucial and the greater the continuity of care, the greater likelihood of building trust between the health professional and the woman giving birth.
A recent study of 20 women who, along with professionals, permitted their births to be videoed showed some surprising results. Of the 20, 11 had to go through one shift change of professionals and three went through two changes. One woman saw 11 different health professionals during her birth experience, which makes it difficult to build up trust. The women were observed for 111 hours, during which midwives were out of the room for 30 hours. There was record keeping for 21 hours and sitting at the bedside for only 16 hours. Time clearly needs to be reallocated. Building midwives' confidence about spending time with the woman and viewing that—rather than record keeping—as a priority is important. We understand that litigation is a problem, but midwives must be encouraged to spend more time with their women. The research also examined how doulas added a positive element to the birth experience. I hope that the Government will reflect on how that might benefit the service.
The advantage of midwifery-led care could also mean better post-natal support. One of the first tasks after giving birth is to establish breast-feeding. Clear evidence shows that it benefits both mother and child. Yet, rates in many parts of the country are still extremely low. The key to increasing the number of women who breast-feed

341WH
is to encourage consistency and advice, and for there to be a supportive attitude and training. The low level of breast-feeding training that is given to midwives and health visitors is shocking. I hope that the Government will deal with that problem.
I wish to read out a letter that I received last year about breast-feeding. It states:
"On my first night alone on the ward, a vicious and scary auxiliary stood over my attempts to breastfeed on my first night alone on a reluctant feeder and angrily re-latched him again and again until it hurt—telling me, 'It SHOULD hurt, start again if it doesn't' and later 'Why are you crying? You are such a woos—it'll get much worse you know'. Three hours later my baby was hungry and sobbing and hadn't fed and I was a wreck and sneaked to the phone to beg my husband to come in early. She returned to shout at me saying: 'He'll get ill if you don't sort this out, you know', whilst pulling him off again.
The next night she asked patronisingly, 'Is it harder than you thought, dear?' giving another nurse a 'one of those' look."
That shows just how much we need to do to encourage women to ensure that they receive consistent advice and that training and breast-feeding counsellors are available. Efforts should be made to tackle the social stigma of breast-feeding. Some communities still reach for the bottle-formula milk, and there is far too much advertising by baby milk companies. We are not giving enough of a lead nationally. It is also an international issue; 1.5 million babies die because of breast-feeding rates. The more than we can do to encourage breast-feeding, the healthier will be the outcome.
The House could take a lead and allow visitors, staff and Members to breast-feed. All professional organisations back such a practice. It should be allowed. I hope that through you, Mr. Beard, we can encourage Mr. Speaker to reach a decision. Women are the best people to judge where and when to feed their babies. We have been arguing about the issue for years and it is important that the House takes a lead, both for national and international reasons.
There is only sparse training in respect of domestic violence in pregnancy. It is frightening. Maternity is a key area in which domestic violence happens. It is a trigger for women to report such instances. There are more domestic violence incidents when a woman is pregnant than outside pregnancy. In 1997 to 1999, a confidential inquiry into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom showed that only 12 per cent. of the women—45 of the 378 women—had reported incidents of domestic violence to health professionals yet, few, if any, were offered help to deal with it. None of those women was routinely asked about violence but, during pregnancy, women are more likely to die from domestic violence than from pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes. We screen for those illnesses, but not for domestic violence. I hope that the Minister will consider such matters. Women must build up trust.
4.33 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.38 pm
On resuming—
Ms Drown: I was talking about the need for women to build up trust and to report domestic violence. I am sure
342WH
that more could be done to stop many women being battered. Unfortunately, too many women are killed by domestic violence during pregnancy. I stress the need for the Government to do more to support midwifery-led care. I hope that they will consider a more flexible transfer from midwives to health visitors in the postnatal period to maximise the chances of supportive relationships being created.
I hope also that the Government will consider ways in which to add to maternity care and to ensure that more woman are supported in their choice to give birth at home. More needs to be done to tackle the high caesarean rate and low breast-feeding rate. I congratulate the Government on the work that they have done so far and I am looking forward to the national service framework for maternity and children's services. I hope that as much as possible can be done in advance of that. The result will be a more satisfying job for both midwives and obstetricians, and recruitment and retention will be improved. The key test is whether there will be better experiences and health outcomes for both women and children. I am pleased to support the Government in their work.
4.40 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the debate. The subject is huge, and it was difficult to decide on what to concentrate in the time available. I thought that I would approach the issue chronologically, discussing the normal progression of pregnancy, then childbirth and then what to do with a child after he or she is born, and how to do the best for him or her. Those are certainly among the most difficult experiences that I have faced in my life.
I had my first baby nearly 20 years ago—that makes me feel terribly old. I vividly remember meeting my general practitioner and midwife. The awful truth suddenly dawned on me that those people, in whom I had great trust, were not going to be there when I needed them, at the birth. I asked my GP who was going to deliver the baby. He said, "If you're lucky, it'll be a midwife, and if you're unlucky, it'll be a doctor." I was horrified by that reply. To someone like me, who had not really researched pregnancy and to whom it was a bit of a shock, it seemed inconceivable that someone should be surrounded by strangers when most vulnerable and having a life-changing experience. That concept seemed fairly alien.
Thankfully, the position is better in some parts of the country. I later started to work with the National Childbirth Trust and began campaigning for better maternity services. I then learned about team midwifery, which has been mentioned, in which a group of midwives are responsible from early pregnancy through delivery until after the birth, when they can give the support that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) mentioned is so vital in breast-feeding. They are a reassuring presence throughout. Women are almost guaranteed that, at that daunting time when they are about to give birth, one of those midwives will be available.
Sadly, although there has been a general increase in such arrangements, some trusts have stopped providing the service due to midwife shortages. We have heard some of the figures. I looked at the 2001 figures, and

343WH
there is no huge shortage of midwives in Scotland, Wales or the north-west. However, shortages are a huge issue in London and the south-east. There is an overall vacancy rate of at least 10 per cent., rising to 16.5 per cent. in London hospitals. Many of the posts—up to 10 per cent. in London—are vacant for more than three months. Much has already been said about the cost of living, and I endorse those comments, because it is vital that we keep a good midwifery service in London and the rest of the country.
I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on what is being done to retain and attract midwives and to ensure that there are enough of them to cope with demand. I cannot over-emphasise how important a midwife is in ensuring that a women is happy with her birth experience. I do not think that the shortage is getting worse, although I have not been able to compare figures for different years. However, we urgently need to address the issue.
I wish to consider the choice issues surrounding the birth. Rates of home births vary widely, and in many areas they are actively discouraged. The choice is better than it was 20 years ago. There are many more midwife-led units, and there is greater acceptance from obstetricians that midwives are professionals in their own right, and are capable of performing the role that they are trained to do, and I welcome that. Whatever the birth method, my overriding concern is that women should retain some say in the process. The issue is one of how, not just where, women give birth.
I have some worries about the concept of a national service framework. It has been widely welcomed, but I hope that the Minister can reassure me on several points. I shall highlight foetal monitoring, which is one aspect of childbirth, to illustrate my point.
Many women would be happy with a low-key approach of being monitored only by a midwife with a stethoscope during labour. The midwife could detect any problems, especially if her skills were up to date, and there is no evidence to suggest that that is a poor way of approaching the matter. Many women do not want to be continually strapped to a machine; they do not even want to be strapped to a machine for a quarter of an hour every few hours, because that is restrictive and uncomfortable. Of course, if a midwife is worried, she may say to a woman, "I'm a little worried about the baby's heartbeat, so we'd like to put you on a monitor." Most women would accept that because they want a healthy baby and they trust their midwife.
A fundamental difference with maternity services that is often forgotten is that they deal with not an illness but what I prefer to think of as a modified state of health. However, obstetricians, especially, think that they are addressing a medical situation. If an obstetrician insists on electronic monitoring at regular intervals, it is likely that the odd unusual trace will be produced. Some suggest that that can lead to more interventions. The hon. Member for South Swindon highlighted the problems that might be caused by such interventions.
If the NSF states that electronic monitoring is a good thing, which it might, because obstetricians believe that, that would become the norm despite the lack of clear evidence to support it. I want reassurance that women
344WH
who want a natural birth may have that. If women want a high-tech birth that involves all the drugs in the world, maybe that should be available. Electronic monitoring is an example of trying to apply a procedure that is used in many medical models to a process that is not totally medical. I could highlight other similar aspects, but time is short.
One-to-one care during labour is a concept that is often bandied about as the holy grail. I saw figures—I could not believe them—showing that more than 95 per cent. of women enjoy one-to-one care during labour. Will the Minister tell us the official definition of one-to-one care? My local midwifery unit believes that one-to-one care means that a midwife stays with a woman throughout her labour, rather than going off to fill in records. In a busy maternity unit, midwives sometimes must dash between two women and pray that the women do not deliver at the same time. Does the Minister agree that a woman should be able to have a midwife present throughout her labour if that is her wish? Many people who are involved in maternity services would welcome a precise definition of one-to-one care.
We cannot leave the discussion about the delivery room without commenting on the alarming increase in rates of caesarean sections. A report by the World Health Organisation says that the rate should be 10 to 15 per cent. However, the United Kingdom's national rate is 21.3 per cent. Department of Health figures show that the average cost of a normal delivery is £700, but the average cost of a caesarean section is £1,700. That represents a significant difference. Every 1 per cent. rise in the rate costs the NHS an additional £5 million, which could be spent on employing more midwives or attracting midwives to areas with many vacancies. We must examine closely the reasons for the rate's steady increase. It is alarming, and a proportion of women undergo an unnecessary caesarean section.
I was alarmed to learn from the World Health Organisation's report that Afro-Caribbean women have a caesarean section rate of 31.3 per cent. What is being done to investigate the reason behind that huge difference? Is the reason cultural? Is it due to something simple, such as that different races have differently shaped pelvises? I doubt that that is the reason—indeed, I am unsure whether there is more than one pelvis shape. Perhaps communication in hospitals is the problem. We must ensure that everyone receives the optimum service. In general, I am opposed to setting targets, but it would be interesting if we could follow what happens with regard to this matter.
After their baby is born, most parents start to think about breast-feeding. The hon. Member for South Swindon has highlighted many of the key issues with regard to that, and the Minister has acknowledged that lack of breast-feeding is linked to poor health outcomes. We all know the benefits of breast-feeding, so I will not repeat them.
However, there are significant class and age differences that should give rise to great concern. We have heard that there are increasing numbers of young mothers, because of the rise in teenage pregnancy, and that they are far less likely than a mother in her 20s to breast-feed—or if they do, they are less likely to continue breast-feeding.

345WH
The differences in breast-feeding rates between the social classes are particularly alarming. Ninety per cent. of new mothers in social class 1 start breast-feeding, compared with 50 per cent. of new mothers in social class 5. Two weeks later, the rates fall to 83 and 36 per cent. respectively. Only slightly more than a third of babies who are born into the most deprived families are breast-fed at two weeks. Four months later, the rates fall to 56 and 13 per cent.
Children from poor and disadvantaged families have a tough start in life. We should tackle the resistance of their mothers to breast-feeding. I am unsure whether they do not breast-feed because they are resistant to it, or because they lack the education to be aware of its benefits. However, we must target those women, because if we manage to increase the proportion of them who breast-feed, that will have lifelong knock-on benefits for their babies.
Breast-feeding rates have not changed much in the past few years. Scotland has a breast-feeding strategy, and England would benefit from the introduction of a similar initiative. Does the Minister plan to do that?
Things are being done well in pockets of the country. My local hospital employs someone specifically to help mothers to breast-feed. She is not a midwife; she started training as a breast-feeding counsellor for the National Childbirth Trust. She helps mothers to start to breast-feed, and when they leave hospital, she gives them her telephone number so that she can continue to support them. That is a good system, but it is not the norm. It should be extended to other hospitals.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon that we must tackle discrimination with regard to breast-feeding, although I am unsure what a Public Health Minister can do to address that. There are still attitudes in society that lead to people frowning on women who wish to breast-feed in public places, such as a restaurant—indeed, some hon. Members might wonder why a mother would wish to do that.
It might beggar belief, but I have breast-fed without anyone really noticing in a variety of public places, such as the top of a mountain, a bus queue, aboard a boat, and in a restaurant. It can be done discreetly. It is not necessary for a big scene to be made of it. Many women will not want to breast-feed in public, because it makes them feel uncomfortable. As the hon. Member for South Swindon said, the mother concerned is the best person to make a decision about where to breast-feed.
After a new mother leaves hospital and takes her baby home, midwife cover is provided for a few days. If the team midwifery approach is adopted, the situation is much easier for the mother. If she has a problem, she can talk about it more easily with the midwives, because she will have built up a relationship with them. We live in a society in which we all want to do well and to feel that we are a success, and we do not like to admit that we have problems.
When I took my baby home from hospital, I suddenly realised that my husband and I had sole responsibility for this little bundle, and I freely admit that that was the most frightening experience of my life. The early stage of motherhood is a very vulnerable time, and new mothers need all the help and support that they can get—not just half an hour a day, if that, from a pressed midwife, and subsequently from an overstretched health visitor.
346WH
I want to discuss health visiting, because we may be missing a few tricks. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have become painfully aware that some families repeat patterns from when they grew up. It sounds terrible, but some people do not really know—they have a rough idea—how to be parents. We all live in little boxes, families are often spread further apart, and role models are sometimes not available.
If health visitors worked with groups of women as friends to build up a network and educate in a low-level way, not saying, "Oh, I'm going to give you a talk on healthy diets today," many positive messages could be sent. For example, in the case of feeding and diet, we hear a lot about food poverty, but we also see people on benefits buying food that is not the most appropriate. Not everyone knows, and not everyone is taught at school, how to eat a healthy diet. We might believe that it is blindingly obvious, but it is not to everyone. The same applies to the benefits of exercise.
Some people do not even know how to play with their children. I laughed when I first heard about a friend who was involved in teaching parents how to play with their children, but for some people that is necessary, because they were never played with as children and have no role model. We need to do something positive for such people. Such families often hit the social services buffers. The family may in the past have resisted working with social services, resulting in a huge reaction against society and the Big Brother approach. We need to be more creative in tackling such problems early on.
I want briefly to touch on vaccination. I welcome the chance to make clear a matter that my intervention did not. If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) had been listening to me, rather than wondering how he could indulge his penchant for attacking the Liberal Democrats, he would have realised that we were not saying anything terribly different.
As I said earlier, I agree that there is no statistical evidence that the MMR vaccine causes a problem, and I stand by that. However, I have recently been investigating autism—a huge subject—more closely, having become involved with a group of parents in my constituency, none of whom blames the MMR vaccine. Reading around the subject, I have become aware of what many people say about when the condition developed. I fully accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Swindon that symptoms sometimes become apparent at the same time. People put two and two together and make not four but 22. They link events because of the chronology. However, when reading evidence or testimonies in which people say that their child went into reverse, questions arise. The incidence is minute and does not show up statistically. I wanted to establish whether it was acknowledged that such children should be closely examined. I believe that I had the answer from the Minister when she said that the fundamental problem is that we need more information about the causes of autism.
The Conservatives' recent announcement about the three single vaccines was highly irresponsible. There is no evidence that the three vaccines are as safe as MMR, and there is some evidence of risk. A theory that is not

347WH
widely espoused is that giving three vaccinations presents three challenges to the immune system and may increase the probability of an adverse event.
The media have been irresponsible and it would be helpful if they could get the positive health messages across and spell out the benefits of immunisation rather than highlighting a story for a week and then leaving people high and dry. Child health problems also centre on poor housing conditions and poverty. While I welcome the good sure start programme, there needs to be more joined-up thinking on such issues. Joint working often offers particular problems. Getting health, social services and housing together is a nightmare, but getting them to agree which service will pay for something is an even worse nightmare. It would be helpful if we could have pools of money and schemes such as sure start that people can access rather than fighting and guarding their individual budgets closely.
The subject is wide ranging, but the fact that many of us have chosen to highlight the same issues means that particular attention should be paid to them. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
5 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: First, I congratulate you, Mr. Beard, on your appointment to the Chairman's panel. It is the first time that such an encounter with you has taken place and I am privileged to speak in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) focused strongly on maternity. I have little knowledge of the subject, but their speeches were highly illuminating. I learned more about maternity this afternoon than I have done during most of my adult life.
I want to focus on child health, on which a large part of the Minister's speech concentrated. The hon. Member for Romsey referred to the value of nutrition in children's health. I want to link that aspect with the Government's wider programme and how they have been trying to tackle poverty. I shall also refer to issues that perhaps the Minister can take up. Being healthy does not necessarily mean the mere absence of sickness, which is, all too often, the measure of health in our society.
Everyone will agree that children have a need to be nurtured and healthy, not only when they are newly born, or learning to walk, talk, spell or ride their first bicycle, but throughout their formative years. The future of human society depends on children being able to achieve their optimum physical growth and psychological development. The phrase "healthy mind, healthy body" comes to mind. I want to encourage the adoption of positive values for children to help them grow up as healthy young people and, eventually, to be fit adults. I am not alone in such thinking. Never before have we had so much knowledge to assist families and society as a whole in their desire to raise children so that they can exploit their own potential.
In the past several decades, the relationship between health, physical growth, psychological development and parental care have become clearer. The Government have made an immense effort to tackle poverty. There
348WH
are many explanations for poor child health. The Minister mentioned a few, but most experts agree that environmental factors such as poverty are the most damaging. Poverty is complex, multi-dimensional and manifests itself in many ways, such as lack of access to good-quality housing, poor health, high levels of unemployment, low rates of pay, high crime rates and poor educational performance. Given that children's experiences are fundamentally influenced by their family circumstances, it is essential that such problems be tackled as a high priority, especially where those experiences will lay the foundation for later life.
Each aspect of poverty is linked, and poverty breeds further poverty. Unemployment can lead to crime, and living in poor, overcrowded housing can result in poor health and have a detrimental effect on a child's education. One reason why I am proud to be a member of the Labour party and a Labour Member of Parliament is that the Labour party and Government have made the greatest progress on this issue. Indeed, they have tackled it head on.
Under Labour, child benefit has increased significantly since 1997, and the introduction of a children's tax credit that would provide a family with about £1,000 extra was announced. The Government have taken 1.2 million out of poverty, and that is to their great credit. Other measures have helped to tackle poverty: the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the legislation that gives workers paid holiday rights, which arose from the "Fairness at Work" White Paper. All those are powerful anti-poverty measures.
We are heading in the right direction but, as I have said, there are areas of concern, and I shall say a few words on food and poverty. Diet-related diseases, which are defined as health problems due to the composition of the diet, are a major factor in premature death and disability. Coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes and cancer—I could go on—are all directly linked to diet. We would like to think that we have a good record, but in fact it is a very poor record, certainly when compared with the record of other affluent countries.
My hon. Friend the Minister quoted many figures; I shall quote one or two. British women are five times more likely to die from coronary heart disease than their French counterparts, and 300 per cent. more British men die from coronary heart disease than our Gallic neighbours. The low fruit and vegetable consumption in the United Kingdom is highlighted as a causal factor in many illnesses. For some, that is a matter of choice, but children often have little choice in what they consume. They rely on their parents or local education authority to provide a balanced and healthy diet.
A recent article about food, but not as we know it, in my local evening newspaper highlighted the issue. In a survey, schoolchildren confused sweetcorn with potatoes, peas with beans and even melons with celery. That shows the confusion between different healthy foods.
Food poverty relates to the ability to afford, or to have regular access to, a range of foods from which to select a healthy and varied diet. The food justice campaign has been aimed at eradicating food poverty. It claims that an average of 5,000 people in every parliamentary constituency may be malnourished. That

349WH
is a very large figure, but it is that campaign's estimate. An estimated four in every 10 people admitted to hospital are malnourished in some way.
Last December, the Child Poverty Action Group produced a report that stressed the importance of healthy eating to a child's development and general health. Entitled "Poverty Bites", it claimed that 2 million children lived in families who could not afford to eat healthily. The report backs up research conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation two or three years ago, which found that the number of people in the UK without access to a healthy diet topped 4 million. The Minister mentioned the Acheson report of 1998, which highlighted the problems of food poverty and access to healthy food. While the social exclusion unit has recognised the problem, it has been left to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) to take the issue forward in his ten-minute Bill, Food Poverty (Eradication).
What needs to be done? Consumers need more information to make real choices. They need to know where their food comes from, how it was produced and whether it has any nutritional value. That is particularly true of children's food, and the Government have a powerful role to involve schools in promoting a balanced diet and healthy eating. Nearly a third of pupils in Middlesbrough are eligible for free school meals. Often, school is the only place where a poorer student can get a decent balanced meal. It is not enough to offer a baked potato and some limp lettuce alongside the usual chips and burgers and expect children to go for the healthy option. Local educational authorities and councils must work together to assess the extent and nature of food poverty in their area. They can identify the needs of local children and set them on the road to a reasonably healthy future.
The Government and the Minister have highlighted many things. We have made an excellent start. I want to thank the Government for that. Tackling child poverty gives hope to many of the children in my constituency. Great credit is due to the Government. Tackling child poverty and the wider issues of health and fitness must remain fundamental objectives if we are to achieve our social objective. It is a moral issue and it is an economic necessity. I am glad that we are having this debate. It has been a responsible and mature debate, although it was polarised on the vaccination issue for a moment or two. I have tried to bring the spirit of Westminster Hall debates back to it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): Order. There are just under 50 minutes left of this debate and four hon. Members wish to speak. If they can keep their remarks within 10 minutes, everyone will have a chance before the Minister replies to the debate.
5.13 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I am delighted that we are having this debate this afternoon on child health and maternity. As the Minister may know, child health is an issue in which I have taken a special interest over many years. I have initiated a number of Adjournment debates in this Chamber on that important subject.
350WH
I was chairman of the Select Committee on Health for five years during which time we undertook a lengthy inquiry into children's health and produced a number of reports and recommendations. As a result of my involvement in those reports and my continuing quest to pursue Ministers with my concerns relating to children, I am now the chairman of a child health group which comprises representatives from many different organisations involved in child care, including the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. I welcome many of the initiatives that the Government are promoting. However, while I acknowledge that the Government have a desire to improve child health, certain shortcomings and problems in the delivery of services need to be addressed. Many recommendations of the Health Select Committee's reports were focused on children in hospital. The Minister should know that surveys by the Royal College of Nursing paediatric nurse managers forum highlight the fact that children continue to be admitted to adult wards—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The increase in ambulatory and day care service provision has exacerbated the problem, as many units do not employ sufficient numbers of appropriately trained children's doctors and nurses.
Recent research in the UK shows that health care provision for adolescents remains inadequate. A study of teenagers in hospital demonstrated that only one in 10 stayed in a specific adolescent ward. I remind Members that adolescents who have to stay in adult wards often feel lonely, isolated, embarrassed and patronised. A survey of 18 hospitals in Wales showed that 7 per cent. of child patients admitted for in-patient care in 1998–99 went into adult wards, and 19 per cent. were treated as day patients in adult wards. The majority of the in-patient children were aged between 11 and 18, while day patients included children from the whole range of nought to 18. Almost half the children cared for in adult wards were day patients.
Action for Sick Children (Scotland) surveyed all the wards admitting children to Scottish hospitals in 2000. It found that 101 wards in 44 hospitals admitted patients aged between nought and 18. About 57 per cent. of the wards admitting children were designed as children's wards, while 43 per cent. were designated as mixed adult and children's wards. About 30 per cent. of those 44 mixed wards were medical, general and surgical; 23 per cent. ophthalmology and ENT; and the remainder split among 13 other specialties.
Will the Minister tell us what action is being taken to end the nursing of children on adult wards and ensure that specially trained staff care for all children? Children constitute a third of all attendees at accident and emergency departments, but the vast majority are not seen in an environment conducive to their needs or by staff appropriately trained and skilled in the care of children.
I welcome the Government's recent investment in accident and emergency services, often awarding funding to schemes intended to improve facilities for children and young people. The Minister will know, however, that a recent Audit Commission study showed that many dedicated children's areas cannot be used

351WH
because funding for appropriate staff is unavailable. Will the Minister make it clear how funding for such capital schemes is awarded, whether the cost implications for appropriate staffing are considered, and whether such schemes are monitored on the basis of outcomes?
Three other major concerns of the medical profession should be put to the Minister. Child health services are becoming unsustainable under working hours directives and clinical governance requirements. Does the Minister intend to make best use of nurses' talents by encouraging their extended role, which will mean significant investment in training, salaries and proper career pathways?
Commissioning tertiary specialist paediatric services is another problem. What arrangements will the Minister put in place, given that primary care trusts are unlikely to have the understanding or ability to promote those services? It is suspected that preference is likely to be given to adult services.
Unbalanced provision is another issue. Too many patients are going into intensive care neonatal services, which is generating disquiet. Clear direction is needed from the Department of Health regarding managed clinical networks to provide neonatal intensive care and special care for sick babies. What action are the Government are taking on that?
All sick children should be cared for in their own homes as far as possible. Children's community nursing teams, such as the Diana nurses in England and Wales, provide essential care and support in the home for children—and their families—who are disabled, chronically sick or terminally ill. However, fewer than one in 10 sick children has access to a 24-hour community service. With the establishment of primary care trusts, many children's community nursing services are becoming fragmented across adult-orientated organisations, which lack insight into the needs of sick children and their families. It is essential that changes to children's services should be instigated to meet the needs of children and their families rather than adults or organisational convenience.
For some time it has caused serious concern to those with an interest in child health that the majority of medicines used to treat children have not been researched for paediatric use. When such drugs are used on children, they are being used outside their licence, and adverse reactions cannot be recorded and monitored in the usual way. Each prescription is a small informal experiment. That state of affairs is surely unacceptable.
The Americans legislated in 1997 to provide incentives for investment in paediatric research, and with great effect. Within three years, 58 paediatric studies had taken place, and last year the United States Food and Drug Administration reported:
"The paediatric provision has done more to generate clinical studies and useful prescribing information for the population than any other regulatory or legislative process to date".
In Europe, more than a year has passed since the Council of Ministers resolved to do something similar, but we are still waiting for a European Commission consultation that is supposed to be imminent. At the
352WH
usual stately pace of Brussels, it could be several years before any real progress is made. I should like to know what the Minister is doing to give the matter the priority that it deserves so that children can be treated more safely sooner rather than later.
It is right that the remit of the Children's Commissioner for Wales was extended to include all services for children in all settings. I welcome plans for the creation of similar posts in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The appointment of Professor Aynsley-Green as national director for children's health care services is a positive step. However, his role focuses on health services, whereas it is the breadth of the remit of the Children's Commissioner, which crosses all Departments, that makes the position so important to children. Do the Government plan to have a Children's Commissioner in each country of the United Kingdom, to act as a powerful advocate for all children?
I turn to an issue with which I have been involved for many years. In 1985 my private Member's Bill on the prohibition of female circumcision in the UK became law. My quest to place the Bill on the statute book was intended not only to make people aware of the practice but to obtain Government funds to set up an education programme among the immigrant communities in which the abuse is prevalent.
I have raised the issue at many international conferences organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and have sought the assistance of international parliamentarians in stamping out the unacceptable genital mutilation of young girls. I am pleased to have recently been invited to participate in a three-member panel set up by the IPU to focus on the issue and devise ways in which we can assist in prohibiting female genital mutilation in all the countries in which it is practised.
The panel will be meeting in Marrakesh in March to take the taskforce forward. It would be a great help to my international parliamentary colleagues and me if the Minister could outline the actions that the Government are taking, first, to ensure that the education program for immigrant communities continues, and secondly, to identify, through social workers and the medical profession, when the abuse occurs. Also, can the Minister explain what action is being taken to prevent children from being sent abroad for this illegal procedure to take place, and whether, if girls are subjected to female genital mutilation in other countries, prosecutions can be brought under UK law on their return? It is estimated that as many as 15,000 girls may be at risk of female genital mutilation in the UK.
Child health must never be allowed to slip off the Government's priority agenda. I hope that my comments this afternoon will assist in focusing the Minister's mind on important issues relating to the subject, and I look forward to hearing her response to all the points that I have raised.
5.25 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I, too, congratulate you, Mr. Beard, on your elevation to the Chairman's Panel. I have long thought that the House did not give sufficient recognition to outer London constituencies such as ours. I am delighted by your appointment, which is, I hope, a small but significant step towards that recognition.

353WH
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I cannot hope to compete with her expertise and knowledge of, and record on, the subject. I do not have any children, and, indeed, I hope to avoid personal experience of maternity services for a little while longer. My reason for attending the debate is entirely parochial. I wish to discuss the quality of the maternity services unit at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituents.
Before I address that, I reinforce the point that I made during an earlier intervention to my hon. Friend the Minister about the need for more funding and support packages for carers of those with autism and Asperger's syndrome, which is a form of autism. I say that because I have supported a constituent and friend, the excellent Raj Ray, through difficult pressures during a dispute with his local authority about accommodation, which related to his son. I pay tribute to the excellent Harrow carers centre, and the Harrow branch of the National Autistic Society. They are two bright spots in Harrow, providing services for the carers of people with autism and Asperger's syndrome.
I urge the Minister to pass back the request for a review of the revenue allocation process that applies to grants for children's services that are given to local authorities. In Harrow, the number of children who are taken into care has increased greatly, and the pressure on our adoption services has also grown. The present funding formula does not recognise those additional pressures.
I shall comment on the maternity services of North West London Hospitals NHS trust and, particularly, Northwick Park hospital. When I was first elected in 1997, there was considerable worry in my constituency about the quality of service that Northwick Park hospital offered. It had an appalling reputation. Operations were cancelled regularly, waiting lists were rising, the fabric of the hospital was often dreadful and the accident and emergency unit was under huge pressure. There seemed to be a financial crisis every year that usually kicked off in December and lasted until the end of March. The sense of secrecy that pervaded many discussions with the chief executive and the hospital board caused great frustration to many of my constituents. Indeed, the only planned capital investment during the previous six years was in the private ward.
Things have improved, but real challenges remain. There is a great need for investment in maternity care services at Northwick Park hospital. There was a sensible merger with the Central Middlesex hospital, and a benefit of that has been to widen the pool of expertise of the clinicians and midwives who are involved with maternity services. The merger delivered a new leadership team for Northwick Park hospital that has experience of running units and has succeeded in attracting investment for maternity services. Accident and emergency facilities have received a long overdue £2.2 million investment, and a new 21-bed unit opened in January that will help to ensure that there is sufficient bed capacity this winter to allow planned operations to continue.
However, additional Government resources are necessary to improve the fabric of the building and the environment for maternity services at Northwick Park hospital. Some would say that we should look to the
354WH
budget of Brent and Harrow health authority. Although the 9.5 per cent. increase in that budget for the next financial year is extremely welcome and an excellent start, it is simply not enough to fund the investment in maternity services that is necessary.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) alluded to the extra investment for maternity services that the Government announced in October. Some would say that that should have funded the expansion and refurbishment of maternity services at Northwick Park hospital. The money that we secured—about £535,000—was extremely welcome and has been well used. It has provided vital medical equipment for monitoring and anaesthetics in the laboratory wards and the obstetrics theatres, and other basic equipment that was lacking. Nevertheless, the substantial investment necessary to improve the quality of maternity services at the main hospital serving my constituents has not yet been provided.
The circumstances surrounding maternity stand in stark relief to those surrounding adult intensive care at Northwick Park hospital, which received an investment of more than £1 million in January last year. Similar investment is necessary in neonatal intensive care facilities at Northwick Park hospital as part of a wider modernisation of maternity services and provision. I assure the Minister that investment in Northwick Park hospital is extremely worth while. The investment in adult intensive therapy unit services resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of transfers of patients in intensive care from Northwick Park hospital to other hospitals—down from more than 106 transfers before that investment to just a small handful now. That throws into stark relief the issues surrounding maternity services.
I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that I have raised the issue before in questions to Health Ministers, and I intend to continue to press the need for investment in the maternity unit until such time as she signs off the necessary investment. The fabric of the maternity services building is a massive problem for the mums, the families who visit and staff, who try to provide a service in a challenging environment. I even went to the trouble of persuading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit the maternity services unit, and he was impressed by the need for investment. It would cost about £12 million—a small sum in the general scheme of things—and would help tackle issues surrounding the recruitment and retention of midwives in north-west London.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be delighted to hear that a bid has been submitted to the London regional office of the national health service. I experience violent mood swings about the performance of that office. Sometimes I believe that it does an excellent job, especially in listening so sensitively to the need for investment in adult intensive care provision. I was delighted that the then chief executive of that office, Nigel Crisp, was duly elevated.
I am deeply unconvinced by the performance of the London regional office when it comes to defending the Mount Vernon cancer unit from the predators in the eastern regional office. I hope that it will get its act together on that. It has been sympathetic in the past about Northwick Park and I hope that it will be deeply sympathetic about that hospital.

355WH
There is a real issue about the quality of neonatal intensive care. It is currently graded a level 3 intensive care facility. If investment can be delivered by the Minister and the London regional office, it will be the fourth or fifth largest unit in London, handling some 5,000 births a year. It is inevitable that a percentage of those births will need neonatal intensive care. Surely there is a sensible case for investing in neonatal intensive care facilities where they are needed most, rather than just locating them close to teaching hospitals in central London.
Finally, the Minister touched on recruitment and retention of midwives. I welcome the news that she is in discussions with the Royal College of Nursing about that. We have a particular concern about recruitment in London and the need for residential accommodation. Northwick park hospital is looking at the issue. I urge her to be munificent, perhaps not now, but certainly within the next few weeks and to grant or to encourage her officials to grant the business case that has been submitted for investment in maternity services at Northwick Park.
5.36 pm
Mr. David Amess: I pay tribute to midwives and in particular the Royal College of Midwives, which is celebrating its centenary. We had a function in the House only last week. The Amess family has much to thank midwives for, and I am especially grateful to Eve and Ladze. There is perhaps no more intimate experience than to be present at the birth of a child. It is a unique experience and a joyful one when there is a successful outcome. When it does not go the way that one would like, it is obviously traumatic. I certainly have much to thank those midwives for.
Having been there from the start of the births of all my five children, I think that I would know what to do if a message were to go up on the annunciator screen to say that someone needed assistance in delivering a baby. It would not just be boiling water and using towels. I am sure that no one would want me to assist, but I have an insight into what goes on. I would not swap places with my wife and other ladies for all the tea in China. I keep many animals and my fish and birds seem to produce their babies so much more easily. I pay tribute to them all.
In a speech to the annual conference of the Royal College of Midwives last year, the Secretary of State said:
"Midwives are the best people to lead the drive to recruit more midwives. In some places that is already happening. By summer I can tell this conference today we will have midwives who will work with every region to champion the recruitment drive in all parts of the country."
Can the Minister tell us whether that is happening? He continued:
"With your support and the investment we are making we can now set ambitious expansion plans for midwife numbers working in the NHS. I can say today that by the end of next year I expect to see an extra 500 midwives working in the NHS. Over the next five years or so I expect the total numbers to have risen to an extra 2,000 midwives, the largest increase for over a decade."
It would be useful if the Minister could tell us what sort of progress is being made in that regard. As she knows, the royal college is concerned that there should
356WH
be an additional 5,000 midwives nationally to provide the levels of care required by women. It believes that women should have one-to-one care from their midwife: they should be cared for by the same midwife throughout the term of their childbirth continuum.
This year, the level of midwife vacancies has decreased only slightly, resulting in the situation being described as "very serious" instead of "critical". A recent Royal College of Midwives survey of issues affecting midwives shows that midwives are as concerned about the standards of care that they can give women as they are about the low levels of pay. Indeed, those low pay levels are perceived by midwives as reflecting the value placed on them by the health service. Has the Minister any ideas about how to address that problem?
I shall describe a number of the ideas that came into my mind as the Minister was speaking. She mentioned smoking. My wife was a chain-smoker who could not have cared less about smoking being antisocial until she became pregnant, and she has never touched a cigarette since. Indeed, she is now probably the worst sort of reformed smoker. I am not advocating that ladies should become pregnant to give up smoking; I am simply saying what happened in my wife's case.
I do not want to start a row about immunisation, but it is not good enough to talk about people jumping on the bandwagon. The Government know only too well—I am not looking to apportion blame here—that it is a difficult situation. Even if every Member of Parliament with children said that their children had had the MMR jab—my three youngest have had it; the two oldest, who are 17 and 16, had single jabs—that would not restore confidence. The Government face a considerable problem.
The Minister said that there was no evidence or proof in relation to the dangers of mobile phones. I do not accept that. Mobile phones damage children's health in a real way, and the entire country is obsessed with using them. Parents—I am guilty of this—give children mobile phones because they think that they can use them if they are ever under threat, but the situation has become ridiculous. Children over-use mobile phones; they come home from school texting one another. The situation is completely out of control.
Putting aside the threat of radiation, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about speech therapists. Before hon. Members start smiling, let me explain that from the age of five, I had to go to a speech therapist for three years. I was extremely grateful for the help that that wonderful lady gave me. There is no magic solution to the problem, but there is a huge shortage of speech therapists.
I also agree with my hon. Friend's point about mental health. That is a huge problem, as I know the Minister recognises. I am talking about the number of children who, for whatever reason, seem to be depressed and to have eating disorders. Some commit suicide. I do not have an easy answer, but that area certainly needs to be addressed.
The Minister knows that I was not best pleased when Southend hospital was given a one-star rating, and we could argue about the six points that were used to give it that rating. It is an excellent hospital, particularly with

357WH
regard to the treatment of children and the maternity service. The Harbour unit, for instance, provides care in the children's ward at the hospital for up to four highly dependent and chronically disabled children. The unit was opened two or three years ago and has enabled the hospital to repatriate patients who had been cared for in London and elsewhere in specialist units.
I am fortunate enough to be the patron of a project called "Building Blocks", whereby some children's services will be linked with Kingsdown school for children with special needs. That is a good example of the local authority and the hospital working closely together. We have the wonderful Neptune children's unit and an excellent special care baby unit, and many other good things are happening in the hospital. I am sure that the Minister will not have time to reply to many, if any, of the points that I have made, but perhaps she will drop me a line on that.
5.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: So much to say, so little time—I will be brief. Of the many points that could be made, I shall pick out only two. The first relates to maternity services, and I acknowledge my indebtedness to the Rosie maternity hospital, which is part of the Addenbrooks NHS trust, in my constituency. None of my children was born at the Rosie, as we lived elsewhere then, but it does a terrific job, with some 4,500 deliveries a year. Only 3,000 are from the Cambridge area, with others travelling up to 50 miles to attend the hospital. That shows the importance of enabling choice, and the changing childbirth system does precisely that.
When I discussed issues with staff at the Rosie maternity hospital, I found that the service was under intense pressure. The return-to-practice initiative of the past year had not delivered what it should because midwives felt that they did not want to return to a practice in which they felt stressed by excessive workload. The Rosie understood that problem during the past two years and the response, as at Addenbrooks, was to be highly proactive in work force planning and introducing a sense of work-life balance and career development for the staff in the trust. Awards were won on that basis.
One important insight is that it is not just about offering work-life balance for midwives with family responsibilities, because the net result was other full-time staff bitterly complaining that they were working round the needs of those staff, and thus working late, at weekends and to accommodate emergency pressures. The burdens of mentoring other staff all fell on those who did not have access to family-friendly policies. The right balance had to be found and work-life balance had to apply to everyone, not only those with family responsibilities.
Evidence-based management of care is crucial. The Rosie found that it was not always easy to remove hierarchies and previous patterns of care. By responding not only to the obstetrician's view of the appropriate level of care and intervention but to midwife's ideas, it was possible to reduce the pressure on beds. Mothers attending the Rosie for an extended period created some of the worst work load pressures.
358WH
Offering substantial education and development to staff is also important. I visited Papworth hospital last week and spoke about extending the role of education and development for non-medical staff in the NHS. An issue that arose was the difficulty, through the process of transferring commissioning to primary care trusts, of making education and development in acute hospital services a sufficient priority. Funding negotiations between the primary care trust and the acute service focus greatly on the delivery of specific outputs to the PCT's priorities, yet education and development of staff is crucial for a trust to develop as a business. In the past two years, it has delivered a great deal to the Rosie hospital.
I move on to children's acute hospital services. I spoke in the debate on the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry report and was surprised that more was not said about the timetable and the Government's intentions on the reconfiguration of children's services. We must consider, almost from scratch, how to structure children's hospital services. The current primary, secondary and tertiary organisation is not necessarily the best structure, with regard to outcomes for children and child-centred care. Roles and relationships must be re-examined, as the Kennedy inquiry suggested, because a hospital such as Addenbrook's might not currently fit the criteria for a tertiary children's hospital, but it might be the sort of place where one would want to position a hub, in a hub-and-spoke model for children's hospital services.
5.50 pm
Yvette Cooper: I congratulate you, Mr. Beard, on your elevation to the Chairman's Panel, and on your chairmanship of the debate.
I will address as many as possible of the points that have been made, and I will write to hon. Members if I fail to cover the subject that they raised.
Many hon. Members raised points about maternity, such as the importance of women-centred care, and of providing choice. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) expressed concern that the national service framework might be too rigid, and that it might provide too many national standards. On the contrary, the purpose of the NSF is to increase the choices that are available to women. However, it also has the task of ensuring that those choices satisfy recognised national standards, so that women throughout the country can have confidence in the quality of the care that they receive.
Several hon. Members raised issues about the number of midwives. I agree that the national health service needs to recruit more of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), and other hon. Members, asked about midwife recruitment in London and the south-east. During the past year, there has been an increase in the number of midwives in those regions, and there has also been an increase throughout the country, which has more than 18,000 whole-time equivalent midwives, compared with 17,660 in the previous year.
The number of midwives—both whole-time equivalent, and the head-count figure—is rising, but we must ensure that that trend continues. To achieve that, we have increased the number of midwives in training by 20 per cent. since 1997.

359WH
Recruitment and retention must also be improved. A more attractive recruitment package has been introduced that includes free refresher training, a grant of £1,500 to midwives, help with child care, free travel and eligibility for housing packages. We are working with the Royal College of Midwives to improve recruitment and retention.
As 60 per cent. of returners work part time, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is correct that we must ensure that working pressures are not too great for midwives who return to the profession, and that there is the right kind of flexibility to support midwives in their family live—and that should not apply only to midwives who have children.
With regard to our endeavour to improve recruitment and retention, the improving working lives package that is operating throughout the country is making an important contribution, but we need to make further progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) made important points about the need to improve maternity services, and I wish to highlight the issue of domestic violence. She is right that domestic violence sometimes starts, or increases, during pregnancy. With regard to identifying domestic violence, there are examples of excellent practice throughout the country, and important work has been done in partnership with the Royal College of Midwives to help midwives to identify and support women who are suffering from it. However, a consultant raised an interesting problem when she told me that her practice was experiencing tensions between the principle of involving fathers at every stage of pregnancy—to which she is committed—and finding opportunities to address domestic violence with the women on their own. This is not a simple issue, but good practice exists, and better ways to disseminate it throughout the NHS must be found.
Issues were raised about breast-feeding, and the importance of post-natal care. Again, shining examples of good practice can be cited. On Friday, I visited a general practice in my constituency where the staff have doubled the breast-feeding rate of their patients in five years. They emphasised that that had been achieved not by telling women what to do, but by giving them the information to make their own choices, and by giving them support when problems arose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made a strong case about maternity services at Northwick Park hospital. I cannot give him a detailed answer about the hospital, but he knows that we are providing additional investment for maternity services and increased investment for neonatal intensive care. We must go further, but I heard the points that he made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made important points about food poverty and the importance of access to a healthy diet during childhood. He is right that that is critical for preventing coronary heart disease in later life. It is true that there are deep inequalities in that area because a person with a low-income background is three times more likely to suffer coronary heart disease than a person with a high-income
360WH
background. We are making progress with the five-a-day community programmes, but I agree that more could be done.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) raised important points about the problems that are faced by children in adult services. There is a general problem that acute services have historically been designed around adults, and children have been slotted in later on. Young people are in a difficult position. That problem is due to the way in which the NHS developed, and many such points were made in the Kennedy report to which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred. We have brought forward the national service framework's acute module for children in order to address the points more rapidly. The NSF will report this year, and I want hon. Members who are interested to contribute points as part of the consultation on the national service framework. If hon. Members wish to pursue that, I shall arrange it.
I shall take a few minutes to address issues that surround the MMR vaccination. Throughout the debate of this week, I have tried to keep politics out of the issue because it is too important for that. Children's health is at stake. I did not raise political differences during my opening speech, and I have tried to refrain from a political discussion. Medical experts are lined up together, and I hope that political parties can also line up together. We had disputes about who said what and when two years ago, and hon. Members said that they tried to establish a bipartisan approach. Letters and minutes of meetings are on record about the subject. However, all that is too trivial in comparison to what is happening at the moment.
The Opposition have called for separate jabs to be available. Let me make it clear that medical advice indicates that the introduction of separate jabs on the NHS would push coverage down compared with the current process. There are several reasons for that. First, the vaccination process would require six jabs rather than two, which increases the chance that people would not complete the course. Secondly, there would have to be gaps between jabs and, indeed, Dr. Wakefield has recommended that there should be a year's gap between immunisations. If separate jabs are used, parents are effectively asked to choose the jab that their children should not receive and, therefore, the disease to which their children should be exposed at that time. That is not a real choice.
The controversy is having an impact on confidence. Evidence from Japan and the 1970s shows that confidence is wrecked completely when government shift policy in response to worries. That is why Japan had serious measles outbreaks during the 1970s, and it is why coverage of whooping cough also fell during the 1970s. That led to children going to hospital, and children dying.
Why do parents want separate jabs? There is no evidence to show that separate jabs are associated with a lower risk than the MMR vaccination. Indeed, the position is quite the reverse, and even Dr. Wakefield's research suggests that. People want single jabs because people such as Opposition Members keep calling for them. They can qualify their remarks as much as they like, but they know the way in which their remarks are interpreted. They were interpreted in that way before the election.

361WH
I have quote from Conservative party central office from before the past election. It states:
"If immunisation rates don't rise substantially when we are returned to government, we will make single dose vaccines available to provide parental choice while, at the same time, continuing to give advice based on evidence of the safety of MMR."
362WH
The Conservative party was calling for single jabs then. The public interpreted that, and that is what they expect. They know that Opposition politicians are calling for single jabs, and that undermines confidence in the MMR vaccination.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the arrangements in place between Crown Prosecution Service, the police and local authorities to ensure that antisocial behaviour proceedings are effective. [31438]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 lays down that there should be local partnerships for crime reduction, including antisocial behaviour. All key agencies, including the police, local authorities and the CPS work according to the "antisocial behaviour protocol". There has been guidance and joint training for all the agencies.

  Prosecution Disclosure
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to introduce legislation to reform prosecution disclosure in criminal cases. [31439]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Government have consulted on Lord Justice Auld's proposals for reform of prosecution disclosure in criminal cases. Following the consultation period which ended on January 31, we are considering our response and have said that our proposals will be set out in a White Paper in April. Any plans to legislate to reform prosecution disclosure in criminal cases will be made public in April.

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment has been made of the risk of the Government facing a legal action under the Human Rights Act 1998 regarding the civil service pension scheme. [31443]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is a long-standing convention enshrined in the Ministerial Code, that neither the fact that the Law Officers have advised on a matter, nor the content of any advice which they may have given, is disclosed outside Government other than in exceptional circumstances. This is to protect the confidentiality of the legal advice given to the Government. The Government, like everyone else, should be able to get the legal advice which they need to perform their functions, without having to explain or justify this to outsiders, or indeed to reveal that it has concerns about the legal position. This ensures that the Government seek, and get, frank advice where appropriate without having to worry about any political and presentational implications.

  Domestic Violence
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in dealing with domestic violence. [31444]
  1052W
  The Solicitor-General
  The role of my Department in relation to domestic violence is to promote the safety of victims of abuse and to hold offenders accountable for their actions.

  The work needed to address domestic violence issues extends far wider than any one Department's remit. This is why I have established with ministerial colleagues a Ministerial Committee on domestic violence.

  We are working closely with colleagues across government to draw up a national strategy addressing domestic violence issues that relate not just to the civil and criminal courts, but also to matters of health, education, child protection, refuges and housing.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps she is taking to encourage participation by her Department in fair trade fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33554]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers' Departments—the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Department—have no plans to participate in fair trade fortnight.

  The individual Departments are, however, always ready to consider fair trade products when these represent good value and all encourage ethical purchasing as an element in their purchasing policies.

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Solicitor-General what has been the total expenditure of her Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been(a) companies whose registered office is in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33692]

  The Solicitor-General
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many arrests have been made in connection with fraud of the Government's individual learning accounts scheme. [31411]

  John Healey
  Forty-four arrests have been made in relation to allegations of fraud with the operation of the individual learning account programme. Twelve people have been charged, one of whom has been convicted.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will announce the date on which the scheme to replace individual learning accounts will commence. [31413]
  1053W
  John Healey
  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. The results will be an important element in developing a successor scheme.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to announce a replacement for individual learning accounts. [31421]

  John Healey
  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.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she will take to ensure that ILA providers are fully compensated following the closure of the scheme. [31423]

  John Healey
  The Department has no plans to compensate learning providers in relation to the closure of individual learning accounts.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether Capita staff at the ILA computer centre have been(a) arrested and (b) investigated by the police in the last six months. [33984]

  John Healey
  There have been no arrests of Capita staff employed at the ILA centre. On Friday 23 November the Department called in police to investigate serious potential fraud and theft involving individual learning accounts. Details of the continuing investigations are a matter for the police. However, to date no evidence has been found to support any allegations that Capita employees have been involved in the abuse of ILAs.

  Pupil Attainment
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the proportion of pupils in the last two years reaching the end of compulsory schooling without a qualification. [31412]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The proportion of pupils reaching the end of compulsory schooling without a qualification in 2001 fell for the sixth year in a row to 5.5 per cent. In 2000 the proportion of pupils leaving without a qualification was 5.6 per cent.

  Student Loans
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her plans for reviewing the operation of the system of student loans. [31414]

  Margaret Hodge
  We shall announce the outcome of the review of student finance when it is complete and we will consult on any proposals for change.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to publish a consultation document outlining options for a new system of student support; and if she will make a statement. [31434]
  1054W
  Margaret Hodge
  We shall announce the outcome of the review of student finance when it is complete and we will consult on any proposals for change.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the introduction of modern apprenticeships in schools. [31416]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government are working with the Learning and Skills Council to develop a pilot preparatory apprenticeship model for 16-year-olds and above in schools, who may progress to a full modern apprenticeship with an employer later. Further more detailed plans for strengthening the work-related learning element in schools, as part of our strategy for a more coherent and flexible 14–19 phase of education and training, will be published in due course.

  University Research
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to fund high-quality research in university institutions. [31417]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government will continue to support high quality research in universities and colleges. The detailed distribution of public funds for research is a matter for the Research Councils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the other UK funding councils. The Department has made available an additional £30 million to fund high quality research next year.

  Public Examinations
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the operation of the public examination system. [31418]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government are determined to maintain a rigorous and high-quality examination system that commands public confidence. We look to the regulatory body—the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority—to ensure that all awarding bodies meet the high standards that students and parents expect.

  Ofsted Report (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the recent Ofsted report into Gloucestershire's local education authority. [31419]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials in my Department have discussed the report with the Council's lead members and officers. I am assured that the authority recognises the weaknesses identified by Ofsted, and will be addressing the recommendations in the year ahead. I await the authority's post-Ofsted action plan, which will set out the action proposed.

  Schools (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received on the future of Dronfield and Diencourt schools in Derbyshire. [31420]
  1055W
  Mr. Timms
  My Department has received an application from Derbyshire local education authority (LEA) to the targeted capital fund (TCF) for capital funding in respect of Dronfield School. TCF supports standards-focused projects which might not otherwise be supported through other capital programmes. TCF applications are currently being appraised and allocations will be announced in March 2002.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has given to learning and skills councils on the financial support of post-16 education in schools.[31422]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council is required to disburse £1.35 billion for school sixth form provision in 2002–03. The Secretary of State's Grant Letter to the Learning and Skills Council for 2002–03 said that she expected the Council to secure a smooth transfer to the new funding arrangements for school sixth forms, and that it must ensure that the funding does not reduce in real terms relative to the amount they received in 2000–01, provided pupil numbers are maintained.

  Reception Classes
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the proportion of four-year-olds in reception classes was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2000; and if she will make a statement. [31424]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The percentage of four-year-olds educated in classes that are not designated as nursery1 in maintained primary schools in England was 53 per cent. and 57 per cent. in January 1997 and January 2000, respectively. Early Years Development and Childcare Plans demonstrate how, in every local education authority area, there is an early education place for every four-year-old whose parents want one in either the maintained, private or voluntary sector.

  Latest figures on under fives provision in England were published in Statistical Bulletin "Provision for children under five years of age in England—January 2001", a copy of which is available from the Library or the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.
  1 Includes reception and other class provision for four-year-olds but excludes designated nursery classes.

  Specialist Schools
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about the criteria she applies when considering a school's application for specialist status. [31425]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 903W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools there are in Yeovil constituency. [31431]

  Mr. Timms
  There is one specialist school in Yeovil.
  1056W

  Adult Education
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals the Government have to introduce an entitlement for all adults to paid tuition for Level 2 courses. [31426]

  Margaret Hodge
  Within my Department, we are currently conducting a review of financial support for adult learners aged 19 or over outside higher education, alongside our work in the Spending Review. We are looking at targeting financial assistance where it is most needed, and at the most cost effective way of doing this. Entitlement for all adults to paid tuition for Level 2 is one option that is being carefully explored.

  We are also developing pilot arrangements that will test how free tuition together with employer compensation for time taken off by employees for learning can act as an incentive. The focus of the learning in these pilots will be basic skills and an initial Level 2 qualification. A small number of pilots will be run by local Learning and Skills Councils in their areas. The pilots will start in spring 2002 with learning opportunities available from September 2002.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what strategy she has to increase participation in adult learning. [31429]

  John Healey
  The Government's strategy is to ensure that learning is available in a form and at a time and place that best suits the needs of adult learners; to provide targeted financial support to adult learners; and to extend the information, advice and guidance available on learning. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a statutory duty to encourage adults to learn. It will publish its strategy for work force development by the end of March 2002. The National Target for Participation in Learning has been achieved one year early, with 500,000 additional learners since 1997.

  School Worship
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about acts of worship in schools. [31427]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  All registered pupils attending a maintained school should take part in a daily act of collective worship. This must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character, though importantly, not distinctive of any particular Christian denomination. Schools of a religious character provide collective worship according to the tenets of their trust deed. They are not obliged to follow the Department's guidance in Circular 1/94, although they may find it helpful to do so.

  Collective worship provides an important opportunity to promote pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. We recognise its distinctive and unique contribution in teaching children about the beliefs and values underpinning our understanding of ourselves, what is right and wrong, our sense of belonging and respect for each other.

  The Government have no current plans to remove the statutory requirement for a daily act of collective worship in schools as the law already allows much flexibility over the organisation, timing and content of worship.
  1057W

  School Exclusions
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the trends in the numbers of school exclusions over the next two years and the underlying reasons; and if she will make a statement. [31428]

  Mr. Timms
  Many factors will affect the number of school exclusions over the next two years. We are taking forward a number of initiatives in this area, including more on-site learning support units; more Learning Mentors; and more Personal Advisers under the Connexions Service for pupils aged 13–19.

  During the period from 1996 to 2000 the overall number of permanent exclusions has fallen—from around 12,700 in the 1996–97 school year to around 8,300 in the 1999–2000 school year. However, in the last school year (2000–01) the number of permanent exclusions is estimated to have risen to around 9,200 (provisional figure), though this is still 28 per cent. below the 1996–97 peak. We recently issued for consultation draft revised guidance on the appropriate use of exclusion. While this proposes to expand the categories of behaviour where permanent exclusion may be justified, given all the measures we are taking to bolster schools and headteachers with more resources to help them avoid the need for exclusion, we do not expect the new guidance to result in any significant increase in the numbers of exclusions.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the difference in numbers of students entering higher education in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland in the last 12 months. [31430]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest figures showing the number of students accepted for entry to undergraduate courses are given in the table. We welcome the continuing buoyant recruitment of students in England and Wales.

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

  Year of entry

  2000

  2001

  Percentage change

  Institutions in:

  England and Wales

  271,100

  286,600

  +5.7

  Scotland

  30,300

  30,800

  +1.9

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to extend education maintenance allowance.[31432]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no such plans at present. We will be taking decisions on any future extension of the scheme on the basis of the rigorous evaluation currently being conducted.
  1058W

  A-levels
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she has made an assessment of the impact on teachers and pupils of introducing a new A* grade at A-level. [31433]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No. The Government currently have no plans to introduce an A* grade at A-level.

  Secondary School Places (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she will take to increase the number of secondary school places in Eastbourne. [31415]

  Mr. Timms
  It is for local education authorities to ensure that sufficient school places are available for the children in their area. Decisions about the organisation and supply of school places are made locally within a transparent decision-making framework. Where an authority can demonstrate a need for additional places it can approach my Department for funding through the annual capital allocation process.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her Department's spending levels in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02, with reference to its expenditure limits. [33428]

  Estelle Morris
  For 2000–01 the comparison of provisional outturn against the departmental expenditure limit appears in the Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn White Paper (Cm 5243), published July 2001. Since July the outturn has increased by £56 million giving a final outturn of £17.705 billion, which is 93.2 per cent. of the total departmental expenditure limit (excluding welfare to work provision) of £18.998 billion.

  For 2001–02 the initial departmental expenditure limit appears in the Departmental Report (Cm 5102), published March 2001, and subsequently changed following the Winter Supplementary Estimate (Cm 5335), published November 2001 to £20.224 billion. Comparison of spend to the departmental expenditure limits will be published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper in July.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the Department's underspend on its expenditure limits in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02.[33429]

  Estelle Morris
  For 2000–01 underspends were reported in the Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn White Paper (Cm 5243), published July 2000. The underspends were based on a comparison of provisional outturn against the departmental expenditure limit. Since July the outturn has increased by £56 million thereby reducing the published underspend accordingly.

  For 2001–02 the initial departmental expenditure limit appears in the Departmental Report (Cm 5102), published March 2001, and subsequently changed following the Winter Supplementary Estimate (Cm 5335), published November 2001 to £20.224 billion. Comparison of spend to the departmental expenditure limits will be published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper in July.
  1059W

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the total expenditure of her Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been(a) companies whose registered office is in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33680]

  John Healey
  The information that can be provided without disproportionate cost is as follows:

  Number of contracts let and total expenditure of IT systems and Support

  Year

  Number

  Total expenditure (£)

  1997–98

  0

  6,446,000.00

  1998–99

  5

  8,000,000.00

  1999–2000

  3

  8,400,000.00

  2000–01

  3

  7,362,000.00

  2001–02

  1

  5,975,000.00

  Total

  12

  30,208,000.00

  Number of companies whose registered offices is in:

  Number

  England and Wales

  11

  Scotland

  1

  Northern Ireland

  0

  Foreign

  0

  Names of companies, whose registered office is in the United Kingdom

  Axios Systems Ltd.

  ISIS Ltd.

  Peoplesoft UK Ltd.

  NETG Ltd.

  Hays Information Management

  Electronic Data Systems Ltd.

  British Telecommunications plc

  CTP Information Management Ltd.

  International Computers Ltd.

  Xansa plc

  Cap/Gemini/Ernst and Young

  EduServ of University of Bath.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34176]

  Estelle Morris
  Information on the costs classified as accountancy services in the accounts of the Department for the last four years are as follows:

  Year

  Value (£)

  1998–99

  44,839

  1999–2000

  80,637

  2000–01

  702,133

  2001–021

  493,947

  1 Nine months to December 2001

  1060W

  Union Learning Representatives
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will give a breakdown, by type of organisation, of the respondents to the consultation exercise on providing statutory rights for union learning representatives. [35051]

  John Healey
  There were 89 responses to the consultation. Of these:31 (35 per cent.) were from trade unions or other worker representative organisations (16 being from employers);
  24 (27 per cent.) were from trade unions or other worker representative bodies;
  11 (12 per cent.) were from local learning and skills councils;
  Nine (10 per cent.) were from other representative bodies (such as learning partnerships);
  Nine (10 per cent.) were from individual union learning representatives;
  Five (6 per cent.) were from individual employees.

  The majority of respondents agreed strongly with the proposals in the consultation document that union learning representatives should qualify as such if elected or appointed according to the rules of the union and that they should undergo training within a specified period. 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 reps are currently playing in the workplace to promote work force development and open up new training opportunities for their colleagues.

  State Schools Performance (A-levels)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the performance of state schools in delivering A-levels and the impact of Learning and Skills Councils on this process. [31410]

  Margaret Hodge
  Ofsted's December 2001 report on the first year of Curriculum 2000 indicated that most state sixth-forms are successfully delivering A-level programmes. This confirms QCA's recent finding that the A-level reforms are now bedding down after some initial problems in 2001.

  The Learning and Skills Council is working closely with LEAs and schools to develop a detailed framework for driving up standards. It takes over responsibility for school sixth-form funding from April this year.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Free Basic Education
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the UK's total international aid budget is spent on basic education; and if she will make a statement. [33519]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2000–01 around £130 million of DFID' s bilateral programme was spent on basic education (9 per cent. of the bilateral total). This shows an increase from 1998 when such expenditure represented 5 per cent. of the bilateral programme. However these figures do not fully represent our effort in this area as they exclude
  1061W
  contributions to NGOs (both national and international) and multilateral organisations, none of which can be disaggregated to this level of detail.

  Water Shortages
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence her Department has collated of civil unrest resulting from water shortages in developing countries in the last 12 months. [33514]

  Hilary Benn
  The DFID strategy paper "Addressing the Water Crisis" identifies the increasing potential for conflict as water demand rises. In areas where water is scarce, increased competition for limited supplies can lead to local tensions, in some cases resulting in violent conflict.

  In the past 12 months, DFID has witnessed this problem in Northern Kenya and Uganda. Different pastoralist groups, competing for water and grazing land, inhabit the area. During drought periods, the groups often come into conflict with one another. Since they are well armed this has led to deaths in the past year. Another example is in the Central Rift Valley in Kenya where protesters barricaded a road as a result of horticulturalists upstream depleting their irrigation water supplies.

  While water shortage as a single issue does not generally result in large-scale civil unrest, it is important to try and satisfy competing demands for water to avoid local conflict. DFID aims to approach water problems from a livelihoods perspective to help ensure that all competing demands for water, and particularly the needs of the poor, are taken into account.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations the Government have made to the United Nations regarding the decline in water tables in certain developing countries. [33512]

  Hilary Benn
  Unsustainable exploitation of groundwater aquifers, in a number of developing countries, is recognised by the UN relevant agencies. The United Nation Environment Programme's publication "Groundwater: A Threatened Resource" focuses on over-abstraction and pollution of groundwater aquifers. DFID's strategy paper "Addressing the Water Crises" also highlights the issue. We recently funded two World bank publications on sustainability of urban and rural groundwater, drawing on the results of DFID funded research. DFID also currently supports an expert to the World bank to identify groundwater issues in key World bank programme countries.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with European Union Ministers regarding the decline in water tables in developing countries. [33513]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any discussions with European Union Ministers on this particular issue. At official level there is discussion with EC counterparts. DFID has also co-funded the European Commission Guidelines for Water Resources Development Co-operation, "Towards Sustainable Water Resource Management", which recognises the problem and provides guidance on sustainable management of groundwater.
  1062W

  Third World Debt
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken to eradicate third world debt; and what steps have been taken to encourage other European states to fulfil their role on this issue. [33490]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government have played a major role in tackling the unsustainable debt burden of the poorest countries. We led the way in securing the revision of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, which was agreed in September 1999. Up to US$100 billion debt could be written off for the 42 HIPC countries. So far, 24 countries have qualified for this exceptional relief, and these countries will receive more than $54 billion of debt relief, so reducing their debts by more than two-thirds on average. We hope that at least two more countries—Ghana and Sierra Leone—will qualify for debt relief in the coming months, but substantial further progress will be difficult, as many of the remaining HIPC countries are affected by conflict.

  The UK is the second largest contributor ($306 million) to the HIPC Trust Fund to help the Multilateral Development Banks meet their share of HIPC costs. This figure includes our share ($85 million) of the substantial EC contribution of US$661 million for which we pressed. Most of our partner states in the European Union have also made bilateral contributions to the trust fund, on top of their share of the EC contribution. In addition, those member states that are major creditors deliver bilateral debt relief through the Paris Club of Official Bilateral Creditors to countries that have qualified for HIPC relief, with the majority—like the UK—providing 100 per cent, debt relief on their remaining bilateral debts.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she is making to the World bank to deliver deeper debt relief to countries with strong national education-for-all plans; and if she will make a statement. [33520]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK works closely with the World bank in implementing the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. The revised framework provides faster, wider and deeper debt relief to poor countries committed to eradicating poverty. Up to US$100 billion debt could be written off for the 42 HIPC countries so reducing their debts by around two-thirds, on average, and freeing up resources for spending on poverty reduction. Last November, I met the World bank president, Jim Wolfensohn, at the annual meetings of the World bank and IMF, in Ottawa, to discuss debt and other development issues. I plan to hold further talks with both the bank and the Fund at the forthcoming spring meetings, in April.

  The central focus of the Government's international development policy is a commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, which include universal access to primary education. Debt relief is a key element is meeting these goals. It is now widely recognised that there was a

  1063W
  need to strengthen the link between debt relief and pro-poor policies. HIPC countries, and other poor countries, are now developing national poverty reduction strategies, setting out how they will tackle poverty and specifying how the debt relief savings, and other development resources—from multilateral and bilateral sources—will be used. For the 24 countries that have already qualified for HIPC debt relief, social expenditure is projected to rise by some $1.7 billion per year. On average, 40 per cent. of this increased social expenditure is being directed towards education. HIPC countries will spend much more on such priority social investments than on debt relief.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33876]

  Hilary Benn
  No DFID staff have been seconded to these companies since 1999.

  Education
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans the Government have to increase the aid budget to support education; whether the Government will press other countries to increase their aid budgets; and if she will make a statement. [31143]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.
  1064W
  The Government remain focused on their long-term goal of helping to tackle global poverty, and achieve the internationally agreed millennium development goals by 2015 that include universal primary education for all children.

  The UK Government have been at the forefront of the HIPC initiative that means the savings from debt relief can be used to develop comprehensive national poverty reduction strategies. Countries receiving HIPC debt relief have benefited from increased social spending of $1.7 billion in 2001–02, equivalent to 1.2 per cent. of GDP. And spending on education has accounted for 40 per cent. of the savings made on debt, equivalent to nearly $700 million in 2001–02.

  The Government's commitment to poverty eradication means action beyond debt relief is needed, and they have increased the Budget of the Department for International Development (DfID) to £3.6 billion—a 45 per cent. increase in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04. Moreover, in his speech in New York and in his pre-Budget report speech, the Chancellor emphasised his commitment to ensuring further substantial increases in development assistance. The forthcoming Spending Review is an opportunity to consider plans for development spending beyond 2003–04, alongside other priorities and pressures.

  The Government are also promoting a significant increase in development aid from all donor countries and international institutions to build capacity and address the long-term causes of poverty in the poorest countries. The Government have proposed an International Development Trust Fund to pool contributions and build on the work of the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the regional development bank.
  1065W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Power Pre-payment Meters
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in(a) England and Wales and (b) the Buckingham constituency have (i) electricity and (ii) gas pre-payment meters. [32185]

  Mr. Wilson
  Provisional estimates for the year 2001 (as at the end of September 2001) show there were 3.7 million electricity prepayment meter customers and 1.8 million gas prepayment meter customers in Great Britain. Of these, just under 3.2 million electricity prepayment meter customers and just over 1.6 million gas prepayment meter customers are in England and Wales.

  The town of Buckingham falls in the east Midlands distribution network for electricity. There were 0.28 million electricity prepayment meter customers in this area as at September 2001. The town of Buckingham falls in the southern local distribution zone for gas. There were 0.09 million gas prepayment meter customers in this area as at September 2001.

  The number of customers on gas and electricity prepayment meters in the Buckingham constituency will make up a small proportion of those on prepayment meters in the east midlands distribution network for electricity and the southern local distribution zone for gas. Data are not available to produce the numbers of customers on gas and electricity customers on prepayment meters in the Buckingham constituency.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of(a) people and (b) households in the Buckingham constituency that are in fuel poverty. [32183]

  Mr. Wilson
  Based on changes in incomes and fuel prices it is estimated that in 2000 there were 2.8 million households in fuel poverty in England (based on income including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest), or 3.9 million households (based on income excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest), representing falls of 15 per cent, and 13 per cent, respectively compared to 1998.

  The following table presents estimates of the number of people and the number of households in England in fuel poverty in 1998, the latest year for which estimates of the number of people in fuel poverty are available. Figures are presented under both definitions of fuel poverty as set out in the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, published on 21 November 2001.

  Fuel poverty in England in 1998

  Million

  People

  Households

  Fuel poverty defined using income including housing benefit and ISMI1

  6.2

  3.3

  Fuel poverty defined using income excluding housing benefit and ISMI2

  8.7

  4.5

  1Fuel poverty defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent, of its income (including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  1066W
  2Fuel poverty defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent, of its income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  Source:

  1998 Energy Follow Up Survey to the English House Condition Survey.

  In 1998, it was estimated that 268,000 households in the region covered by the Government office for the south-east were in fuel poverty (based on income including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest). This represents 8.3 per cent, of households in the south-east region and 8.2 per cent of all households in fuel poverty in England.

  When income excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest is considered, 406,000 households in the region covered by the Government office for the south-east were in fuel poverty (based on income including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest). This represents 12.6 per cent, of households in the south-east region and 9.1 per cent, of all households in fuel poverty in England.

  The numbers in fuel poverty in Buckingham will make up a small proportion of those in fuel poverty in the south-east Government office region. Data are not available centrally to produce estimates of fuel poverty in the Buckingham constituency.

  Universal Bank
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what agreement has been reached with commercial banks on the charges to be levied on failed direct debits on basic bank accounts under the Universal bank. [32554]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The banks have agreed to make their basic bank accounts accessible through post offices as part of universal banking services. Implementation of that agreement is now a commercial matter between Post Office Ltd. and the banks. The detailed features of these accounts are not part of the agreement on universal banking services. However, the Government have announced their intention to establish a benchmark CAT standard—covering charges, access and terms—for a basic bank account, and are still in discussion with the banks about these.

  Miners' Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent via the Miners' Compensation Scheme in every parliamentary constituency in Wales in each of the last seven months. [32848]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is not able to provide a constituency breakdown for each of the last seven months in the time available.

  A breakdown of headline statistics for each constituency, as at the end of December 2001, is available on the Department's Coal Health Claims website www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. These figures are updated on a monthly basis.
  1067W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent via the Miners' Compensation Scheme in Wales in each of the last six months. [32850]

  Mr. Wilson
  As at 27 January 2002 the Department has paid out £121.6 million in Wales—£66.8 million on respiratory disease and £54.8 million on vibration white finger.

  The breakdown for the previous six months is as follows:

  £ million

  Respiratory disease

  VWF

  Total damages paid in Wales

  During January 2002

  4.8

  2.4

  7.2

  During December 2001

  2.8

  1.6

  4.4

  During November 2001

  6

  2.4

  8.4

  During October 2001

  4.5

  3.8

  8.3

  During September 2001

  2.9

  2.9

  5.8

  During August 2001

  3.1

  2.1

  5.2

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money in the Miners' Compensation Scheme, allocated to be paid to successful applicants in Wales, was outstanding in each parliamentary constituency in Wales(a) his month and (b) in each of the previous six months. [32849]

  Mr. Wilson
  The coal compensation schemes do not have specific funds allocated to them. The Government have previously confirmed that they will meet the full cost no matter what the amount.

  The Department expects the total cost of the liabilities for respiratory disease and vibration white finger, assumed from British Coal in January 1998, to be about £6 billion.

  Employment Tribunal
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce a fee for employees wishing to take their employers to an employment tribunal. [33005]

  Alan Johnson
  We have no plans to introduce such a fee. The Government Response to the "Routes to Resolution" consultation sets out the reasons for not taking forward the proposal to introduce a charging regime for employment tribunals. A copy of the Government Response has been lodged with the Libraries of the House.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the meetings she and her ministerial colleagues held with(a) Hugh Collum and (b) Norman Askew in 2001. [32237]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our records show that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met Hugh Collum and Norman Askew on 13 March 2001, and Hugh Collum on 19 July 2001.
  1068W
  I met Hugh Collum and Norman Askew on the following dates in 2001:

  Tuesday 13 March—Hugh Collum and Norman Askew

  Wednesday 20 June—Hugh Collum and Norman Askew

  Wednesday 18 July—Norman Askew only

  Thursday 19 July—Norman Askew only

  Tuesday 25 September—Hugh Collum and Norman Askew

  Wednesday 31 October—Hugh Collum and Norman Askew

  Thursday 15 November—Hugh Collum and Norman Askew

  Tuesday 11 December—Hugh Collum and Norman Askew.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report,column 153W, on BNFL, when officials in her Department first acquired information that BNFL was insolvent. [32796]

  Mr. Wilson
  28 November 2001.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the results of ECGD's consultation on the establishment of a trading fund. [35050]

  Ms Hewitt
  In July 2000, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a target date for establishing a Trading Fund by 1 April 2002. In September, I launched a public consultation document on the establishment of a Trading Fund. I have today placed a copy of the report on the outcome of the consultation before the Libraries of both Houses.

  The systems needed to operate the Trading Fund are not yet fully in place and have yet to be adequately tested. I have therefore decided that the original target date is no longer appropriate. In doing so, I have taken account of the responses received to the consultation, as well as a range of operational factors.

  I remain committed to the preferred course of capitalisation in the longer term. In the meantime, ECGD is giving priority to its business and systems. I shall make a further announcement in due course.

  Independent Petrol Retailers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many independent petrol retailers have operated in England and Wales in each of the past five years. [32236]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Institute of Petroleum's (IP) annual "UK Retail Marketing Survey" (last published in March 2001) provides data on the total number of petrol retail outlets in operation in the UK.

  The following table, using the IP data, shows the number of petrol retail outlets in operation in England and Wales which were not branded either by a major oil company or a hypermarket chain and thus provides some measure of the number of independent retailers. Dealers who sell major oil company branded fuel are excluded by this method. In the last three of these years, some sites

  1069W
  have been identified as "unbranded", and are identified separately in the table. In the year 2000, no regional breakdown of the unbranded sites was given.

  Branded

  Unbranded

  Total

  England

  1996

  3,056

  —

  3,056

  1997

  3,741

  —

  3,741

  1998

  2,709

  295

  3,004

  1999

  2,860

  468

  3,328

  2000

  2,387

  1468

  2,855

  Wales

  1996

  359

  —

  359

  1997

  224

  —

  224

  1998

  239

  112

  351

  1999

  208

  134

  342

  2000

  172

  1134

  306

  1 On the 2000 survey, no regional breakdown of unbranded sites was given. As the UK total of unbranded sites was virtually unchanged, (1999:867, 2000:866), it has been assumed for the purposes of the table that the unbranded numbers in England and Wales were also unchanged.

  Redundancy Payments
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are to increase the maximum weekly pay figure used when calculating redundancy payments in 2002. [33731]

  Alan Johnson
  The maximum amount of a week's pay to be taken into account for the calculation of statutory redundancy payments was increased from £240 per week to £250 per week from 1 February 2002.

  Federal Mogul
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government assistance has been made available to Federal Mogul at(a) its UK plants and (b) its Sunderland plant in the last five years. [33739]

  Alan Johnson
  Regional Selective Assistance has been made available to the following:

  (a) Federal Mogul Eurofriction Ltd. (Scotland), offered £300,000 in December 1999 and Federal Mogul Global Growth Ltd. (West Midlands), offered £1.2 million in September 2001.

  (b) Federal Mogul TP Sunderland Ltd., offered £550,000 in January 2001, but no payments have been made.

  In addition, payments have been made to Federal Mogul Eurofriction Ltd. for an offer made in 1995.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  women's Unit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for Women how many staff have been assigned to the Women's Unit. [33058]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Women's Unit was created in 1998. Its staff for the first financial year of its existence (1998–99) was 45. 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
  1070W
  equality, co-ordination of sexual orientation policy and its sponsorship of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Its current staffing level stands at 63.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Recesses
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for the reform of the length and timing of parliamentary recesses. [32467]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  As I stated in my memorandum to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, I would like to see greater certainty about the timing of parliamentary adjournments, a closer relationship between adjournments and school holidays, and a rearrangement of business to reduce the length of the summer period during which Parliament does not sit, while maintaining the current balance between sitting and non-sitting weeks.

  February Recess
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the President of the Council what(a) evidence he considered and (b) local education authorities he consulted on school half term holidays before announcing the dates of the February recess. [32172]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Before announcing the dates of the February adjournment I consulted the Department for Education and Skills to establish which dates were likely to coincide with the majority of half term holidays. I recognise, however, that such holidays vary across the country, and regret it is impossible to satisfy all hon. Members.

  Public Bodies (Contracts)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions,(c) inquiries,(d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33878]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department is not responsible for any NDPBs, commissions, inquiries, agencies or task forces and has not made any such appointments during the period mentioned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his US counterparts regarding the treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners captured in Afghanistan. [28339]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in close contact with the US as the detaining power. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the treatment of those detained by the US in Afghanistan with Colin Powell during his visit to Washington on 31 January and 1 February, and again made it clear that detainees should be treated humanely
  1071W
  and in accordance with international norms. The US authorities have said that the detainees are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in his Department worked on Afghanistan in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) January 2002; and on what tasks and in which policy areas they were deployed. [33762]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: FCO staff working on core Afghanistan-related issues in 1999, 2000, 2001 and January 2002 were four, four, between 19 to 30 and 24 respectively. The staff were working mainly on political and economic matters.

  An additional 235 FCO staff worked at various times on a variety of crisis-related work between 11 September and the end of 2001. This figure does not include staff already in the relevant front-line geographical and functional department. It is not possible to give a precise number given the cross-cutting nature of the crisis and the breadth of the FCO's response to it.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the future of Afghanistan. [34004]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary maintains regular dialogue with his European counterparts on the future of Afghanistan. He met EU Foreign Ministers on 28 January at the General Affairs Council in Brussels, and is attending an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on 8–9 February in Caceres, Spain.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the strategic importance of the United Kingdom retaining its existing role in Gibraltar. [31874]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 741W.

  EU Top Secret Documents
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to limit foreign travel by Commission officials with access to EU top secret documents; and if he will list the countries to which paragraph 6 of 19.6 of Corn Doc 2001/844/EC refers. [32707]

  Peter Hain
  Com 2001/844 19.6(d) refers to the rules governing travel by officials of the European Commission. The Commission does not currently hold any EU top secret documents.

  There is no formal list of countries likely to present a risk to staff cleared for EU top secret access. As in the UK, decisions are taken at departmental level in the light of prevailing circumstances, and staff cleared to EU top secret would be warned to seek approval before travelling
  1072W
  to any country likely to present a particular risk. At present the only travel advice given to officials concerns individual safety.

  Liberia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy toward Liberia; what assessment he has made of the impact of sanctions; and when he expects them to be lifted. [32716]

  Mr. MacShane
  Liberia continues to threaten stability in the Mano River sub-region and undermine progress towards lasting peace in Sierra Leone. A UN report published in December 2000 highlighted President Taylor's financial and military support for the RUF rebels trying to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone. The UN demanded that Liberia cut its links with the armed rebel groups. In May 2001, with strong UK support, the UNSC imposed sanctions on Liberia including a renewed arms embargo, a ban on the export of uncut diamonds and a travel ban on President Taylor and his associates. We believe the sanctions should remain in place until there is clear evidence that Taylor has fundamentally changed his behaviour.

  Turkey
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many business ventures British Trade International has assisted in Turkey during the last two years. [32984]

  Mr. Straw
  There are no complete records of companies who have benefited from British Trade International assistance in Turkey. The Turkey Trade Unit (TTU) of Trade Partners UK maintains a database of approximately 3,000 active records compiled initially from those companies who participated in the various activities of the "Turkey: Positioned for Business" promotional campaign, which occurred between 1998 and 2001.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what schemes exist to promote British investment in Turkey; and if he will make a statement as to their effect. [32985]

  Mr. Straw
  British companies are able to access the full range of Trade Partners UK services when developing their business overseas. Information on these services can be found on the Trade Partners website (www.tradepartners.gov.uk). These services make no distinction between companies which are trading and those which are seeking to invest.

  UK trade with Turkey has developed into a two way business of approximately £3 billion a year. Exports were down in 2001 as a result of the Turkish economic slowdown but are still expected to be around £1.2 billion while imports are expected to reach £1.8 billion. The UK was the fifth largest foreign investor in Turkey in 2001, with an investment stock of some £2.3 billion.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards British Trade International has in place to protect the interests of British investors in Turkey. [32989]
  1073W
  Mr. Straw
  The UK has an agreement for the promotion and protection of investments with the Republic of Turkey, which entered into force on 22 October 1996. That agreement provides British investors with certain rights in respect of their investments in Turkey, including the right to treatment no less favourable than that accorded by the Turkish Government to Turkish investments or the investment of the nationals in Turkey of any third state. In the event of a dispute arising between the Turkish Government and a British investor in respect of a British investment in Turkey, the British investor has the right to submit the dispute to international arbitration under the jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints the British embassy in Ankara has received from British(a) companies and (b) individuals investing in Turkey in the last two years. [32986]

  Mr. Straw
  The British embassy in Ankara has received very few complaints. The embassy and its consulates have, however, given advice and support to a number of British companies and individuals on how best to pursue administrative or licensing problems with the Turkish authorities, and referred such inquirers to independent legal advice when necessary.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many business ventures which were originally assisted by British Trade International are subject to legal proceedings in Turkey. [32988]

  Mr. Straw
  We do not know the numbers of business ventures originally assisted by British Trade International, which are subject to legal proceedings in Turkey, nor could such information be provided, if at all, except at disproportionate cost. Any companies who are likely to need to resort to law are encouraged to seek the advice of the British embassy in Ankara or its consulates where they may benefit from British Trade International assistance.

  In the event of a commercial dispute the plaintiff is directed to seek independent legal advice and to pursue their claim through the appropriate channels.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to promote British investment in Turkey. [32987]

  UK delegation to the committee of the regions

  Nominees

  Full members

  Muriel Barker

  North East Lincolnshire (Unitary) District

  Derek Boden

  Leader of the North West Regional Assembly

  Ken Bodfish OBE

  Leader of Brighton and Hove city council

  Sir Albert Bore

  Leader of Birmingham city council

  Keith Brown

  Leader of Clackmannanshire council

  Rosemary Butler AM

  National Assembly for Wales, Newport West

  Ruth Coleman

  Executive Member of North Wiltshire county council

  Michael Davey

  Leader of Northumberland county council

  Sir Simon Day

  Chairman of Devon county council

  Margaret Eaton

  Leader of Bradford metropolitan borough council

  Baroness (Joan) Hanham

  London borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Lord Hanningfield

  Essex county council

  Gordon Keymer

  Leader of Tanbridge district council

  Christine May

  Leader of Fife council

  1074W
  Mr. Straw
  The British Government give high priority to Turkey in their trade development activities but no special plans exist to promote Turkey as a destination for UK investment. HM Government have been assisting the Turkish Government with their plans to improve the environment for foreign direct investment in Turkey.

  As part of this, in January 2002 the Deputy Director-General of Foreign Investment from the Turkish Treasury, Mrs. Emil, visited the UK as a guest of HM Government to look at UK experience of promoting inward investment and regional development.

  Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff were seconded between(a) BP,(b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and(iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33202]

  Mr. MacShane
  Three FCO officers were seconded to BP during 1999–2000, one officer from 2000–01 and one officer from 2001 to present date. A representative from Shell has been seconded to our embassy in Tripoli from June 2001 to June 2002 under the short-term business attachment scheme (STBAS). No officers were seconded to/from Enron, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Texaco or TotalFinalElf.

  Iran
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Iran. [33634]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK has, through critical engagement, aimed to support reform in Iran while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern.

  EU Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's representation on the European Union's Committee of the Regions. [34926]

  Peter Hain
  We have submitted to the Council Secretariat details of the United Kingdom's 24 nominees for full membership of the Committee of the Regions, along with 24 alternate nominees. They are:
  1075W

  UK delegation to the committee of the regions

  Nominees

  Peter Moore

  Liberal Democrat Leader of Sheffield metropolitan borough council

  Dermot Nesbitt MLA

  Junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

  Alban Maginness MLA

  Northern Ireland Assembly

  Irene Oldfather MSP

  Scottish Parliament, Cunninghame South

  Dame Sally Powell

  London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  Brian Smith

  Torfaen county borough council

  Nicol Stephen MSP

  Scottish Deputy Minister for Education and Young People

  The hon. Joan Taylor

  Nottinghamshire county council

  Lord Tope CBE

  Liberal Democrat Leader of the Greater London Assembly

  Milner Whiteman

  Bridgnorth district council

  Alternate members

  Jennette Arnold

  Member of the Greater London Assembly

  Joan Ashton

  Independent Group Leader and Deputy Leader of Boston district council

  Ruth Bagnall

  Labour Group Leader of Cambridge city council

  Olive Brown

  Leader of Wear Valley district council

  Diane Bunyan

  Deputy Leader of Bristol city council

  Flo Cluclas

  Liverpool city council

  Hugh Halcro-Johnston MSP

  Convener, Orkney Islands council and Vice-President of COSLA

  Dr. Ruth Henig CBE

  Chair of Lancashire police authority

  Jonathan Huish

  Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council

  Elin Jones

  Assembly Member for Ceredigion

  Susie Kemp

  Opposition Leader of West Berkshire county council

  Lord Tarsem King

  Mayor of Sandwell district council

  Sue Sida Lockett

  Conservative Group Leader of Suffolk county council

  Corrie McChord

  Leader of Stirling council

  Jack McConnell MSP

  First Minister

  Irene McGugan MSP

  Shadow spokesperson for children and education

  Bob Neill

  Member of the Greater London Assembly, Bexley and Bromley

  Margaret Ritchie

  District councillor, Down district council

  George Savage MLA

  Northern Ireland Assembly, Upper Bann

  David Shakespeare

  Leader of Buckinghamshire county council

  Shirley Smart

  Leader of Isle of Wight unitary council

  Jim Speechley CBE

  Leader of Lincolnshire county council

  Liz Tucker

  Liberal Democrat Leader of Worcestershire county council

  Sir Ron Watson CBE

  Sefton metropolitan borough council

DEFENCE

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the deadlines for a final decision on the A400M. [33089]

  Dr. Moonie
  Representatives of the eight participating nations met on 31 January to discuss the latest position on A400M. We continue to work constructively with our partners on ways to bring the project to fruition as soon as possible. One option is to extend the deadline for Germany to secure its necessary approvals.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1118W, on Nancekuke, what anecdotal evidence he has implying nerve agent production plant built at Nancekuke contained equipment originating from Germany. [33694]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I indicated in my earlier answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1118W, there are no surviving records which detail the origin of equipment and materials used at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Nancekuke.

  However, it is known that equipment was brought back to the UK from Germany after World War II and that some of this was used to set up the nerve agent pilot plant
  1076W
  at Sutton Oak. It is probable that some of this equipment was subsequently transferred to Nancekuke, but there is no surviving documentary evidence.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the PPPs in which his Department is engaged. [34399]

  Mr. Ingram
  PPPs cover a wide range of acquisition techniques from major partnering arrangements and PFI to a wide range of smaller scale service contracts. The Ministry of Defence only holds centrally comprehensive records for projects involving PFI.

  To date 42 PFI deals have been signed as follows:

  White Fleet (Support Vehicles) in Germany

  Special Storage Facilities

  Hazardous Stores Information System

  Materials Handling Equipment

  Training Administration and Financial Management System (TAFMIS)

  RAF White Fleet (Support Vehicles)

  Defence Helicopter Flying Training School

  Tidworth Water and Sewerage

  Hawk Aircrew Training Simulator

  Electronic Messaging Service (Armymail)

  Defence Fixed Telecommunications Services

  Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility

  1077W

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  Joint Services Command and Staff College

  RAF Lyneham Sewerage

  RAF Fylingdales Power Supply

  Yeovilton Family Quarters

  RAF Mail

  RAF Cosford/Shawbury Family Quarters

  RAF Lossiemouth Family Quarters

  Attack Helicopter Training

  Light Aircraft Flying Training

  Central Scotland Family Quarters

  Naval Recruitment and Training Agency Fire Fighter Training

  Tornado GR4 Aircrew Simulator Training

  Army Foundation College

  Defence Intelligence Service Information Technology

  Commercial Satellite Communication Service

  Tri-Service Materials Handling

  Defence Animal Centre

  RAF Sentry E3D Aircrew Simulator Training

  Lynx Aircrew Simulator Training

  Defence Electronic Commerce Service

  Main Building Headquarters

  Royal Navy Communications Service

  Tri-Service White Fleet (Support Vehicles)

  Wattisham Family Quarters

  Defence Housing Executive Information System

  Astute Class Submarine Crew Simulator Training

  Bristol, Bath and Portsmouth Family Quarters

  Heavy Equipment Transporter

  Marine Support to Range and Aircrew Services.

  Three other projects have reached the preferred bidder stage. These are as follows:

  Colchester Garrison

  Field Electrical Power Supplies

  Roll-on Roll-off Strategic Sealift.

  Invitations to negotiate have been issued for the following:

  "C" (Earthmoving and Construction) Vehicles

  Armoured Vehicle (Synthetic) Training Service

  Army Training Estate Strategic Partnering

  Devonport Support Services

  Flight Simulation and Synthetic Trainers

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft

  Materials Handling Equipment (Follow on)

  MOD-wide Water and Wastewater (Project Aquatrine)— Package A

  Northwood Headquarters Support Services

  Records Storage and Management (Hayes PPP Project)

  Royal School of Military Engineers

  Royal School of Signals

  Skynet 5 Satellite Communications

  Tri-Service Airfield Support Services.

  1078W
  The following projects have been advertised:

  Accommodation Services on Cyprus

  Air Traffic Control Services

  Combined Aerial Target Service

  Defence Sixth Form College

  Interim Storage of Laid Up Submarines (ISOLUS)

  MOD-wide Water and Wastewater (Project Aquatrine) Packages B and C

  Pan Defence High Frequency Communications Service.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much(a) uranium and (b) plutonium is owned by this country. [31706]

  Mr. Hoon
  As stated in the Strategic Defence Review, Supporting Essay Five, the Ministry of Defence owns 21.9 tonnes of highly enriched uranium, 15,000 tonnes of other forms of uranium, and 7.6 tonnes of plutonium.

  Army Cadet Force (South Tyneside)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits there were to the Army Cadet Force in south Tyneside in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c)2001. [32094]

  Dr. Moonie
  Cadet recruitment figures are not held in the form requested. It is usual, however, for cadet detachments to recruit about 80 per cent, of their total strength each year. For the south Tyneside detachments this equates to approximately 100 new cadets each year.

  Outreach Schemes
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department(a) is giving and (b) will give in future years to the schemes for young offenders run by the Army Cadet Force leadership as Outreach. [33302]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Outreach Project is run by the Army Cadet Force Association (ACFA) and aims to provide vulnerable and problem youngsters with the chance to develop a better attitude towards themselves and their communities. The programmes are run through the Army Cadet Force, in partnership with schools, local authorities and the police service, and offer challenging, adventure based activities.

  The Ministry of Defence is pleased to support such a worthwhile scheme and since its launch in 1996 we have given the project £114,400 annually. We will continue to provide support in the future. Last year the Home Office committed £60,000 annually to the project for at least the next two years and the Youth Justice Board is also giving the ACFA a one-off grant of £60,000 for facilities support. In addition, Army facilities are made available to the project at no cost.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many local discussion groups were held to gather views and opinions on the proposed changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme up to 31 December 2001. [33700]
  1079W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence held 17 focus groups during the initial research phase of the review. These took place in the south-east of England during November and December 1999 and covered all three services. During the consultation period (March 2001 to end July 2001), discussion groups took place at seven Army units, five Navy units and five RAF units throughout the country. Discussions were also held with ex-service organisations, such as the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations (COBSEO), the Forces Pension Society, and the War Widows Association.

  Warships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Bulwark will have(a) a full crew complement, (b) full aircraft load, (c) vehicles and (d) a complete set of equipment when she comes into service; and if he will make a statement. [32158]

  Dr. Moonie
  At her planned in-service date of December 2003, HMS Bulwark will provide a significant improvement in capability over her predecessor.

  She will have a crew complement to enable her to conduct her trials and work-up periods and to fulfil her design capability when she becomes operational.

  There has never been a requirement for Bulwark to be equipped with her own organic aircraft. Aircraft will be embarked when they are required.

  When she enters service Bulwark will have a complete set of the necessary equipment. She will also have four landing craft utility, four of the smaller landing craft vehicle and personnel and a hippo (the new armoured beach recovery vehicle which is due to enter service in 2003).

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts he has with Arthur Andersen; when they were placed; how long they have to run; and what is their(a) individual and (b) total value. [33091]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has two current contracts with Arthur Andersen. Contract number DPT/2002 was placed in October 2000 and is due to complete in 2002. Contract number CP(PI)025/l was placed in January 2002 and is due to complete in January 2006.

  In addition, Andersen provides Secretariat support to the Review Board for Government Contracts. There are no plans to terminate this support, as the company provides crucial continuity to a review of the Government Profit Formula that is currently being undertaken by the Treasury.

  Finally, there is some outstanding work for orders placed under a framework arrangement, for which the tasking period has now closed.

  The values of individual contracts are withheld under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, but the total value of the extant contracts is around £7 million.
  1080W

  RAF Bases
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the station operating budget was for each RAF base in the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [32445]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The table shows the RAF operating budgets for each of the UK RAF stations for financial year 2001–02. It does not include former RAF stations that have retained their name but which have been transferred to the ownership of another part of the Ministry of Defence.

  £ million

  Station name

  Operating costs

  RAF Bentley Priory

  5.9

  RAF Boscombe Down (Support Unit)

  5.6

  RAF Boulmer

  22.2

  RAF Brampton/Wyton

  24.6

  RAF Brize Norton

  144.7

  RAF Buchan

  19.9

  RAF Coltishall

  66.2

  RAF Coningsby

  56.6

  RAF Cosford

  62.3

  RAF Cottesmore

  55.4

  RAFC Cranwell

  97.3

  RAF Donna Nook

  0.30

  RAF Fylingdales

  15.7

  RAF Halton

  31.0

  RAF Henlow

  12.3

  RAF Holbeach

  0.66

  RAF High Wycombe

  15.8

  RAF Honington

  71.8

  RAF Innsworth

  14.0

  RAF Kinloss

  112.4

  RAF Leeming

  64.1

  RAF Leuchars

  60.5

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  29.0

  RAF Lossiemouth

  96.5

  RAF Lyneham

  126.3

  FSCTE Manston

  4.5

  RAF Marham

  95.6

  RAF Neatishead

  14.1

  RAF Northolt

  20.4

  RAF Pembrey Sands

  0.25

  RAF Shawbury

  21.7

  RAF Spadeadam

  7.0

  RAF Stafford

  31.4

  RAF St. Mawgan

  45.7

  RAF Tain

  0.93

  RAF Uxbridge

  11.1

  RAF Valley

  30.7

  RAF Waddington

  77.2

  RAF Wainfleet

  0.52

  RAF Wittering

  48.4

  RNAS Yeovilton

  16.6

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

  Long Service Pay
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the over 35 years of age restriction on accessibility to the long service advance of pay for Army and RAF personnel to over the age of 23. [33764]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: There are no plans at present to reduce the qualifying age for Army and RAF personnel, but the implications of doing so are being reviewed.
  1081W

  Tornado F3
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where the Tornado F3s from RAF Coningsby will be based when 5 Squadron is declared down in January 2003;with which squadron they will be available for operational duty; and if he will make a statement; [33642]

  (2) how many Tornado F3s will be based at (a) RAF Leeming, (b) RAF Leuchars, (c) RAF Coningsby and (d) other sites in February 2003; and if he will make a statement. [33641]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Aircraft from 5 Squadron will be re-distributed across the balance of the Tornado F3 fleet. The specific details of where all these aircraft will be relocated have yet to be finalised. All aircraft will remain available for operational duty.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado F3s are based at(a) RAF Leeming, (b) RAF Leuchars, (c) RAF Coningsby and (d) other sites; and if he will make a statement. [33643]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The number of Tornado F3 aircraft allocated to the stations in question is currently: RAF Coningsby 37, RAF Leeming 28 and RAF Leuchars 28. Operational aircraft are not based at any other stations.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado F3s are on loan to Italy; when they will be returned; where they will be based and with which squadron when returned; and if he will make a statement. [33644]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: There are 24 Tornado F3 aircraft on loan to Italy all of which will be returned by December 2004. Their future on return is yet to be decided.

  HMS Gannet
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the current establishment of civil search and rescue capability will be maintained at HMS Gannet, Prestwick after MOD withdrawal from the site. [33936]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The Ministry of Defence are not withdrawing from HMS Gannet at Prestwick. HMS Gannet will remain a base for Royal Navy Search and Rescue helicopters, which will respond to civil incidents when tasked by the Air Rescue Co-ordination Centre.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions British special forces have received from his Department on the transfer of prisoners to US forces. [33608]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: I am withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Operational instructions are confidential, and are consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under international law.
  1082W

  Aircraft
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 502W, whether C-17s have since then been used to transport cargo into Afghanistan; and whether another Antonov has been chartered since then. [34353]

  Mr. Ingram
  The C-17 aircraft has been used since 18 January to transport cargo into Afghanistan and, under current plans, will continue to do so for the duration of the operation. Given the time scale and size of the task, we have continued to charter Antonovs since 18 January to supplement the RAF's airlift effort to deploy the UK's contribution to the International Security Assistance Force.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has of a threat to the C-130K in Afghanistan from small arms fire. [33099]

  Mr. Ingram
  While we have no recorded incidents of small arms fire being directed at C-130Ks flying into Afghanistan, such an incident cannot be ruled out. Force protection measures appropriate to this threat have therefore been put in place.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will fit lighting to the flight deck of the C-130Ks operational in Afghanistan which is compatible with night vision goggles; and what the cost is of fitting NVG compatible lighting to the C-130K. [33095]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details on the ability of the C-130K fleet to operate in low light could provide a potential adversary with information that could undermine our defence capabilities. This information is therefore withheld in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The cost of fitting night vision goggle compatible lighting to the C-130K is of the order of £80,000 per aircraft (VAT exclusive).

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had about fitting flight deck armour to the C-130Ks operational in Afghanistan. [33093]

  Mr. Ingram
  The level of protection employed on the Hercules fleet could provide a potential adversary with information that could undermine our defence capabilities. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) lease further C-17s and (b) charter further Antonovs. [33090]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no current plans to lease further C-17s. We will continue to charter Antonov 124 aircraft as our strategic transport requirements dictate.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of fitting flight deck armour to the C-130K is. [33094]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost is in the order of £150,000 per aircraft.
  1083W

  Jaguar Engine Upgrade
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the customer specifications requested for the upgrade of the Jaguar engine Adour 104; and if he will make a statement. [34019]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Jaguar Adour Mk 106 weapon system specification includes an extensive and detailed engine technical specification. Much of the content is provided by industry under a confidentiality agreement which prevents the Ministry of Defence releasing the information to any third party. The information requested is withheld in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to third party commercial confidences.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate in percentage terms the operational performance and operability of the(a) upgraded Jaguar engines Adour 104 and (b) the pre-upgraded Jaguar engines; and if he will make a statement. [34020]

  Mr. Ingram
  In percentage terms, taking the current Adour Mk 104 engine performance as 100 per cent., the upgraded Adour Mk 106 engine provides an increase in thrust generating a performance level of 105 per cent. This increase enables the Jaguar aircraft to operate more effectively in hot climates and improves engine reliability.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the upgrade of the Adour 104 engine will be sufficient for the current and projected weapons payload; if a further upgrade of the Jaguar engine will be required before the end of the projected in-service lifespan; and if he will make a statement. [34021]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Adour Mk 106 engine, which is the upgraded version of the Mk 104, will allow the Jaguar aircraft to meet its current and projected role for the remainder of its in-service life. No further engine upgrades are planned.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total underspend in his Department was on(a) capital and (b) non-capital expenditure in each financial year since May 1997. [34025]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the following appropriation accounts, which provide the data requested. Copies of these are available in the Library of the House.Appropriation Accounts 1997–98 Vol 1: Class 1 MOD, 26 Nov 1998, pps 10, 11, 12, (Vote 1) pps 23 and 31 (Vote 2) and p 32 (Vote 3).
  Appropriation Accounts 1998–99 Vol 1: Class 1 MOD, 19 Jan 2000, pps 10, 11, 12, (Vote 1) pps 23 and 29 (Vote 2) and p 30 (Vote 3).
  Appropriation Accounts 1999–2000 Vol 6: Class VI MOD, 24 Jan 2001, pps 9–11 (Vote 1).
  Appropriation Accounts 2000–2001 Vol 6: Class VI MOD, 23 Nov 2001, pps 11–14 (Vote 1).

  KFOR
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel, and of what nationalities, were(a) directly and (b) indirectly under British command in KFOR on 1 January each year since June 1999. [34110]
  1084W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Commander of the Multi-National Brigade (Centre) is the senior British officer in KFOR. He had the following personnel under his operational control during the subject periods.

  Countries

  1 January 2000

  1 January 2001

  1 January 2002

  United

  Kingdom

  2,112

  3,353

  2,889

  Canada

  914

  —

  —

  Czech

  Republic

  162

  170

  168

  Finland

  680

  816

  957

  Sweden

  709

  768

  767

  Norway

  961

  1,010

  999

  Latvia

  —

  5

  10

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Defence whether members of the Royal Military Police are stationed in Kosovo. [34113]

  Mr. Ingram
  45 members of 110 Provost Company are currently stationed in Kosovo.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel, and of what ranks, were directly under the command of personnel of other nationalities in KFOR on 1 January each year since June 1999. [34112]

  Mr. Ingram
  British military personnel in KFOR are under the operational command of the UK Chief of Joint Operations. Operational control of most elements of the UK contribution is delegated to Commander KFOR, who has not been a UK officer since October 1999. Some individuals are seconded to posts in the NATO chain of command, where they come under more direct day to day command of a non-UK officer. The information cannot be provided in the form requested, however the table gives details available from records held.

  Year

  HQ KFOR Kosovo

  HQ KFOR Fyrom

  September 2000

  46

  12

  February 2001

  48

  17

  January 2002

  35

  16

  Details of rank are not available, but the majority will be officers.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the arrangements are for the command and control of British personnel seconded to UN policing duties in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [34114]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no UK military personnel currently conducting UN policing duties in Kosovo. However, there are currently Ministry of Defence police officers deployed in Kosovo as part of the UK Government commitment to the United Nations International Civil Policing Mission (UNMIK). The command and control arrangements for these officers are the responsibility of the United Nations Police Commissioner in Kosovo.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian personnel, and of what nationality, were contracted(a) directly and (b) indirectly to British forces in KFOR on 1 January each year since June 1999. [34111]
  1085W
  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of locally employed civilians engaged by UK forces in Kosovo are as follows:

  Year

  Locally employed civilians

  1 January 2000

  875

  1 January 2001

  628

  1 January 2002

  660

  Records held do not indicate ethnic origin but the vast majority would be Kosovars.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26319]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on remuneration for senior staff is shown in the individually published audited accounts. Remuneration in respect of the financial year 2000–01 salaries are to be published in the DETR Resource Accounts, which are to be laid before Parliament by 31 January 2002.

  In respect of (a) and (b), in each of the three earlier years 1997–98 to 1999–2000, one individual in DETR and one individual in the agencies received more than £100,000 but less than £200,000. Annual remuneration includes basic salary, allowances, bonuses and taxable benefits in kind. It does not include pension benefits.

  In respect of (c) on NDPBs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 253W.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [27909]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 30 January 2002 by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office,Official Report, columns 405–06W.

  Information on the cost of taxis by the Department is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, officials should use the most cost effective method when travelling on official business.

  Euro
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assistance has been made available to local authorities to issue the payment of(a) bills and (b) services in euros and what discussions he has had with (i) local government
  1086W
  representatives and (ii) the Treasury to review the limit set for local authorities regarding collection of their income in non-sterling. [29693]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Details of the Government's preparations for the introduction of euro cash in the euro area from 1 January 2002 are contained in the Fifth Report on Euro Preparations. We recently drew local authorities' attention to the treatment of euro payments, making it clear that, as is the case with other major international currencies, it is a matter for individual authorities whether or not to accept payments for bills and services in non-sterling. There is no limit set for local authorities regarding the collection of their income in non-sterling.

  Rail Strategic Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the £33.5 billion contribution to the costs of the SRA Strategic Plan by the public sector includes the public subsidy payments to the train operating companies. [30257]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on 29 January 2000,Official Report, columns 177–78W.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 53W, what discussions he expects to have regarding aspects of the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan that directly relate to Scotland; [32607]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West of 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 53W, whether the Strategic Rail Authority has sought to have discussions with him with regards to aspects of the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan that directly relate to Scotland. [32697]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers and officials meet regularly with the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss rail issues including those that directly relate to Scotland.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the result of the recent consultation on abandoned vehicles. [31506]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DTLR/DEFRA consultation closed on 31 January. The Government expect to publish the outcome of the consultation shortly.

  Rail Delays
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what record is kept of the total length in minutes of service delays on Britain's railways; what plans there are to change the method of recording and reporting delays and cancellations; and what assessment is made of the total cost of Britain's railways in terms of(a) customer time and (b) cost to British business. [31523]
  1087W
  Mr. Jamieson
  As to the first part of the question, Railtrack keep records of delay minutes. As to the second part, there are no plans to change the current method of recording and reporting delays and cancellations. As to the third part I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 734W.

  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 524W, if he will place in the Library information on how many trains for each train operating company running London commuter services arrived late by (a) more than five minutes and (b) more than 10 minutes in each four week period from May 1997 to January 2002, distinguishing between (i) peak and (ii) off-peak periods caused by (a) Railtrack and (b) train operating companies. [31478]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  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 524W, if he will place in the Library information on how many trains for each train operating company running London commuter services arrived late by (a) more than five minutes and (b) more than 10 minutes in each month from January 2000 to January 2002, distinguishing between (i) peak and (ii) off-peak. [31487]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 524W, if he will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish on the Strategic Rail Authority website the monthly punctuality of train operating companies; [31479]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 524W, if he will place in the Library information on how many trains for each train operating company arrived late by (a) more than five minutes and (b) more than 10 minutes in each four week period from May 1997 to January 2002, distinguishing between delays caused by (i) Railtrack and (ii) train operating companies. [31480]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 787W, on train operating companies, if he will provide details of the most recent advice from the Strategic Rail Authority to which his Department has had regard; and how often the Strategic Rail Authority monitors the performance of train operating company parent companies. [31592]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority monitors the performance of train operating companies, and their parent companies, on a continuous basis.
  1088W

  Public Highway Closures
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those public highways which have been permanently closed without due process in the last five years. [31977]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no record of cases over the last five years of public highways which have been permanently closed without due process.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under what common law powers the police can permanently close a public highway to pedestrian and vehicular access. [31980]

  Mr. Spellar
  The police do not have powers to close a public highway permanently under common law. They do, however, have powers under section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to close a road or restrict its use by vehicles for up to even days in emergencies.

  A highway may only be closed permanently by an order made by a magistrates court under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 or, to facilitate development, by a competent authority under the provisions of sections 247 or 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Government Offices (Access)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) under what statutory powers it is possible to seek redress for the closure of pedestrian access between St. James's Park and Downing street; [31975]

  (2) what public notice has been given by the Metropolitan police for the permanent closure of Downing street to pedestrian and vehicular access. [31950]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 538W.

  Airport Rail Links
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 54W, on airport rail links, what involvement he plans to have in the detailed economic and engineering studies being led by the Scottish Executive. [32604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The studies are for the Scottish Executive to take forward with the other organisations to which I referred in my previous answer.

  Local Authority Housing
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total amount of money spent in real terms was by local authorities on housing repairs in each of the last 10 years. [30476]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: Capital and revenue expenditure by local authorities in England on repairs, renovations and improvements to their own stock, and capital grants to support private sector renewal, is as follows.
  1089W

  Local authority expenditure on stock repairs, renovations and improvements: England

  £ million in 2000–01 prices

  Local authority stock1

  Registered social landlord stock

  Private sector stock

  Capital expenditure

  Revenue expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  Total expenditure

  1990–91

  2,337

  2,632

  87

  505

  5,562

  1991–92

  1,720

  2,529

  69

  536

  4,854

  1992–93

  1,801

  2,584

  107

  619

  5,111

  1993–94

  2,059

  2,580

  133

  679

  5,451

  1994–95

  1,953

  2,613

  118

  647

  5,331

  1995–96

  1,857

  2,560

  149

  584

  5,150

  1996–97

  1,664

  2,493

  145

  550

  4,852

  1997–98

  1,495

  2,370

  145

  464

  4,473

  1998–99

  1,559

  2,293

  153

  500

  4,506

  1999–2000

  1,456

  2,166

  157

  465

  4,245

  2000–01

  1,787

  2,074

  200

  423

  4,485

  1 Local authority owned stock in this period declined from 3.9 million in March 1991 to just over 2.8 million in March 2001.

  Notes:

  1. Capital expenditure figures from 1994–95 onwards are expressed on an accruals basis: those for 2000–01 are provisional based on estimated components of reported total capital expenditure.

  2. Totals may not be consistent with the sum of components because of rounding.

  3. Elements of expenditure include:

  Local authority stock: All capital improvement, conversion, adaption and renewal work on Housing Revenue Account dwellings. Revenue expenditure on local authority stock reflects spending on repairs direct from the housing revenue account and contributions to the housing repairs account.

  Registered social landlord stock: Support for RSL schemes, including new-build projects, via LA social housing grant advances.

  Private sector stock: Renovation grants, disabled facilities grants and payments in relation to minor works assistance, group repair and renewal areas.

  Source:

  DTLR annual Housing Investment Programme returns, and subsidy claim forms

  Pedestrian Traffic Accidents
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which 10 local authority areas had(a) the highest and (b) the lowest number of pedestrian traffic accidents involving children in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what percentage of the child population these figures represent in each case. [30574]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The table shows the number of child pedestrians injured in road accidents, for the local authorities with the 10 highest and 10 lowest casualty numbers. The number of child pedestrian casualties in road accidents in any local authority can vary considerably from year to year, so the figures shown are averages for the most recent three years available.

  Child pedestrian casualties by local authority: GB 1998–2000 average data

  Local authority (Highway)

  Casualties

  Percentage of child population injured

  Highest

  Birmingham

  470

  0.200

  Lancashire

  391

  0.169

  Kent

  338

  0.124

  Glasgow City

  315

  0.269

  Liverpool

  297

  0.308

  Bradford

  278

  0.247

  Leeds

  274

  0.189

  Essex

  246

  0.096

  Manchester

  246

  0.242

  Hampshire

  216

  0.086

  Lowest

  Monmouthshire

  14

  0.084

  Powys

  14

  0.058

  Moray

  12

  0.069

  1090W

  Child pedestrian casualties by local authority: GB 1998–2000 average data

  Local authority (Highway)

  Casualties

  Percentage of child population injured

  Ceredigion

  11

  0.091

  Isle of Anglesey

  11

  0.083

  Rutland

  6

  0.077

  Eilean Siar1

  4

  0.075

  City of London

  3

  0.391

  Shetland Islands

  1

  0.026

  Orkney Islands

  1

  0.025

  1 Formerly known as the Western Isles

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many of his Department's PFI contracts Arthur Andersen has been an adviser; and if he will make a statement. [31718]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Andersen has not advised my Department on any of its PFI contracts.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what dates since 7 June 2001(a) Ministers and (b) special advisers in his Department have met employees of (i) Andersen and (ii) Accenture on official business; and if he will make a statement. [32100]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality,
  1091W
  it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many contracts have been let to Arthur Andersen by his Department since 1997 on(a) matters relating to the railways and (b) other matters; [33045]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002, Official Report, column 584W, on departmental consultants, on what matters relating to Railtrack his Department is continuing to receive advice from Arthur Andersen. [33046]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire, whether through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or other procurement routes, taking into account the Government's policy of seeking value for money for the taxpayer. The public sector as a whole has signed hundreds of contracts, covering the delivery of a range of services.

  The number of contracts that have been let to Arthur Andersen since 1997 are as follows;

  (a) Two—on accountancy and taxation issues relating to the administration process and on the restructuring of Railtrack plc;

  (b) Three—two are framework agreements (framework agreements do not guarantee work; each firm on the agreement has to bid for individual tenders). One housing research project was also completed in 1999.

  Rail Passengers
  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, columns 534–55W, on measurement of passenger overcrowding, in what year the Strategic Rail Authority, or its shadow predecessor, began publishing annual results of "Passengers in Excess of Capacity"; for what reasons annual "Passengers in Excess of Capacity" information published on the SRA website is available only for selected years; and if he will place in the Library all available annual statistics on "Passengers in Excess of Capacity". [32416]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These figures are available on the Strategic Rail Authority's website, except those for 1997 which were the first to be published and which pre-date the launch of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (Opraf) website. The figures for 1997 are:

  Percentage

  Company

  PIXC

  Chiltern

  2.0

  Connex South Central

  4.8

  Connex South Eastern

  3.0

  Great Eastern

  3.3

  LTS

  0.6

  Silverlink

  1.9

  South West Trains

  3.8

  Thames Trains

  2.1

  Thameslink

  4.4

  WAGN

  0.6

  1092W
  These figures have been published in Opraf and SRA annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 789W, on rail safety, if he will list those industry representatives with whom officials have had discussions, and their suggestions for action. [32695]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of continuing action to track progress with the recommendations in the Southall action plan, officials from the Health and Safety Executive have had contact with Railtrack plc (in administration), Railway Safety and the Association of Train Operating Companies. The Health and Safety Commission will be publishing the action reported by industry in its next progress report.

  Rail Franchise Operators
  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, on the rail industry, with what frequency the Strategic Rail Authority is required to publish its regular bulletin describing the performance of franchise operators; and what performance indicators the bulletin is required to describe. [32418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The draft directions and guidance which were put out for consultation on 29 June 2001 require the authority to" … publish a six-monthly bulletin describing, in terms that reflect the experience of passengers, the operating performance of franchise operators for the preceding period and their customer satisfaction levels."

  Rail Track Conditions
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the inspection schedule used by Railtrack in their assessment of track conditions; what progress had been made towards completing the schedule since October 2000; and if he will make a statement. [32523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for Railtrack, who say that all of their track has been inspected during 2001; and will be inspected in the current year. The frequencies and methods of inspection reflect the speed and annual tonnage of trains using the track and are set out in Railway Group Standard GC/RT 5021.

  Transport Investment
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the(a) public investment expenditure, (b) public resource expenditure, (c) private investment, (d) public expenditure supporting private investment and (e) public spending from local charging revenue planned for each year 2001–02 to 2010–11 as adjusted for changes in spending as a consequence of the publication of the Strategic Rail Authority Plan, subdivided between (i) strategic roads, (ii) rail, (iii) local

  1093W
  transport, (iv) London, (v) other transport areas and (vi) unallocated at (A) outturn prices and (B) 2000–01 prices. [32297]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The breakdowns requested are shown in Tables A to D, expressed in outturn prices, and in Tables E to H, expressed in 2000–01 prices.

  10 year plan public expenditure and private investment—Table A: Public investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  Strategic Roads

  1,000

  1,135

  1,150

  1,239

  1,132

  1,291

  1,462

  1,682

  1,725

  1,745

  13,560

  Rail

  625

  1,448

  2,521

  2,438

  2,934

  2,671

  2,212

  1,312

  1,221

  1,245

  18,627

  Local Transport

  1,326

  1,517

  1,658

  1,923

  1,907

  2,085

  2,180

  2,189

  2,202

  2,231

  19,218

  London

  1,015

  762

  932

  894

  730

  689

  700

  687

  698

  715

  7,822

  Other

  119

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  63

  681

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  70

  71

  59

  659

  1,546

  1,978

  2,301

  6,685

  Total

  4,085

  4,924

  6,323

  6,626

  6,837

  6,858

  7,275

  7,478

  7,887

  8,299

  66,592

  Table B: Public resource expenditure excluding revenue support for private investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  Strategic Roads

  415

  433

  479

  536

  550

  499

  522

  513

  505

  525

  4,975

  Rail

  1,589

  1,361

  1,382

  1,401

  1,333

  1,150

  1,005

  1,035

  856

  788

  11,900

  Local Transport

  2,733

  2,864

  2,932

  2,996

  3,044

  3,095

  3,135

  3,191

  3,239

  3,293

  30,521

  London

  613

  689

  727

  757

  760

  767

  772

  781

  788

  777

  7,431

  Local Charging Revenue

  0

  0

  0

  153

  313

  359

  399

  452

  502

  508

  2,686

  Other

  132

  128

  135

  149

  151

  153

  155

  157

  159

  161

  1,480

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5,482

  5,475

  5,656

  5,991

  6,150

  6,022

  5,988

  6,128

  6,048

  6,051

  58,992

  Table C: Private investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  20010–11

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  Strategic Roads

  173

  223

  242

  150

  325

  425

  400

  300

  200

  200

  2,638

  Rail

  3,655

  3,747

  3,787

  3,956

  3,158

  3,147

  3,116

  3,168

  3,254

  3,359

  34,347

  Local Transport

  559

  675

  781

  862

  953

  1,049

  1,058

  1,045

  995

  995

  8,971

  London

  722

  704

  657

  610

  1,047

  1,440

  1,632

  1,475

  1,251

  825

  10,364

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5,109

  5,349

  5,467

  5,578

  5,483

  6,061

  6,205

  5,988

  5,700

  5,379

  56,320

  Table D: Revenue support for private investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  Strategic Roads

  206

  220

  239

  261

  353

  447

  454

  517

  604

  609

  3,910

  Rail

  0

  12

  50

  101

  187

  337

  430

  531

  633

  726

  3,007

  Local Transport

  0

  0

  8

  27

  57

  102

  162

  237

  312

  387

  1,292

  London

  0

  0

  0

  28

  29

  29

  30

  33

  48

  50

  246

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  206

  232

  297

  417

  626

  915

  1,076

  1,318

  1,597

  1,772

  8,455

  Table E: Public investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  Strategic Roads

  976

  1,080

  1,068

  1,122

  1,000

  1,113

  1,230

  1,380

  1,381

  1,363

  11,714

  Rail

  610

  1,378

  2,341

  2,209

  2,593

  2,303

  1,861

  1,077

  978

  973

  16,322

  Local Transport

  1,294

  1,444

  1,540

  1,742

  1,686

  1,798

  1,834

  1,797

  1,763

  1,743

  16,639

  London

  990

  725

  865

  809

  645

  594

  589

  564

  559

  559

  6,900

  Other

  116

  59

  58

  56

  55

  54

  53

  51

  50

  49

  601

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  63

  63

  51

  555

  1,269

  1,584

  1,797

  5,382

  Total

  3,985

  4,687

  5,872

  6,002

  6,043

  5,913

  6,121

  6,138

  6,315

  6,483

  57,559

  1094W
  No decision has been made on the allocation of spending from local charging revenues, however a year by near breakdown for the period 2001–02 to 2010–11 is shown in Tables B (outturn prices) and F (2001–01 prices).
  1095W

  Table F: Public resource expenditure excluding revenue support for private investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  20012–02 to 2010–011

  Strategic Roads

  405

  412

  445

  485

  486

  430

  439

  421

  404

  410

  4,337

  Rail

  1,550

  1,295

  1,283

  1,269

  1,178

  992

  845

  849

  685

  616

  10,564

  Local Transport

  2,667

  2,726

  2,723

  2,714

  2,690

  2,669

  2,637

  2,619

  2,593

  2,572

  26,610

  London

  598

  656

  675

  686

  672

  661

  650

  641

  631

  607

  6,476

  Local Charging Revenue

  0

  0

  0

  139

  277

  310

  336

  371

  402

  397

  2,230

  Other

  129

  122

  126

  135

  133

  132

  130

  129

  127

  126

  1,289

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5,349

  5,211

  5,252

  5,428

  5,436

  5,193

  5,037

  5,030

  4,843

  4,727

  51,506

  Table G: Private investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  Strategic Roads

  169

  212

  225

  136

  287

  366

  337

  246

  160

  156

  2,294

  Rail

  3,566

  3,566

  3,517

  3,584

  2,791

  2,714

  2,621

  2,600

  2,606

  2,624

  30,189

  Local Transport

  546

  642

  725

  781

  842

  905

  890

  858

  797

  777

  7,762

  London

  704

  670

  610

  553

  926

  1,242

  1,373

  1,211

  1,002

  644

  8,935

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  4,985

  5,091

  5,077

  5,053

  4,846

  5,226

  5,220

  4,915

  4,564

  4,202

  49,180

  Table H: Revenue support for private investment

  £ million outturn prices

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  Strategic Roads

  201

  209

  222

  236

  312

  385

  382

  424

  484

  476

  3,332

  Rail

  0

  11

  46

  92

  165

  291

  362

  436

  507

  567

  2,477

  Local Transport

  0

  0

  8

  24

  50

  88

  136

  195

  250

  302

  1,053

  London

  0

  0

  0

  26

  25

  25

  25

  27

  38

  39

  205

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unallocated

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  201

  221

  276

  378

  553

  789

  905

  1,081

  1,279

  1,384

  7,067

  Southall Rail Inquiry Recommendations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Health and Safety Commission will issue its next progress report on its action plan to implement the recommendations of the Southall Rail Accident Inquiry report. [32108]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The HSC aims to publish by mid-April a report on the industry's progress on the action plan to February 2002. This will cover the two year period proposed by Professor Uff for implementing the report's recommendations.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  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 536W, on Transport Direct, what research has been conducted for his Department's reviewing policy on (a) travel information and (b) retailing; and if he will make a statement. [32409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 536W.
  1096W

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was spent in each of the last five years by London Underground Ltd. on renewal and improvement of train signals and related equipment; what is the extent of signal renewal necessary over the next five years; what he expects will be undertaken and completed; and if he will make a statement. [33380]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground advise that the following has been spent on the renewal and improvement of train signals and related equipment in each of the last five years:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  16.7

  1997–98

  14.4

  1998–99

  27.9

  1999–2000

  30.1

  2000–01

  25.7

  The Tube Modernisation plans are designed to achieve a comprehensive modernisation of the entire underground network. This is necessarily a long-term programme and there is a limit on the amount of work that can be done simultaneously without causing excessive disruption to

  1097W
  the service to the public. The overall requirements have therefore been specified by London Underground to renew signalling equipment over time, prioritised to deliver the greatest benefits as quickly as possible. The detailed requirements will be published by London Underground shortly.

  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the London Underground PPPs. [34640]

  Mr. Byers
  The Board of London Regional Transport has today announced that it is minded to proceed with its plans for the modernisation of London Underground. It will now consult the Mayor of London and Transport for London as required under the terms of S298 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. At the request of the Mayor and Transport for London, London Regional Transport has offered to extend the period of consultation until 8 March.

  The Board of London Regional Transport has undertaken a thorough evaluation of the bids to assess whether they are likely to provide value for money. It is confident they would do so and that the proposed contracts would provide an appropriate basis for the future management of the London underground infrastructure.

  The contracts envisage a long-term partnership between London Underground and three private sector infrastructure companies who will take over responsibility for maintaining and upgrading the network. The private sector will be committed, under contract, to deliver specific improvements and will be incentivised appropriately. If they fail to do so they will be penalised. Persistent inability on the part of infrastructure companies to meet their obligations could lead to their contracts being terminated.

  I have taken separate independent advice from Ernst and Young. Ernst and Young have confirmed to me that the process followed by London Underground's evaluation team has been suitably robust and that London Underground's recommendation that the PPP proposals deliver value for money is a subjective one which is supported by its analysis. A copy of Ernst and Young's report has been placed in the Library of the House and is available on my Department's website.

  I will of course take full account of Ernst and Young's findings. In particular, I agree with Ernst and Young that the Arbiter, whom I will appoint in accordance with the Greater London Authority Act 1999, should be resourced to be fully effective, and I will ensure that is the case. And I agree with Ernst and Young that the final decision to go ahead should be conditional upon, among other things, the final prices and risk transfer proposals submitted by the bidders not altering materially prior to financial close.

  Depending on the outcome of the statutory consultation, the Board of London Regional Transport would be likely to take a final decision on whether or not to proceed with its modernisation plans for the London underground in the middle of March.
  1098W
  The safety case still has to be accepted by the Health and Safety Executive. The proposals will not proceed unless this acceptance is obtained.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) the current and (b) the planned proportions of Ordnance Survey's investment in the Digital National Framework which are based on (i) partnerships with the private sector and (ii) National Interest Mapping Services Agreement funding. [32840]

  Ms Keeble
  Ordnance Survey's partnership arrangements with the private sector have not contributed to the investment in the Digital National Framework (DNF). Ordnance Survey's plans include working with the private sector in developing the content of the DNF in future.

  By the end of 2001–02, funding under the terms of NIMSA will have contributed approximately half of the investment in the DNF. This has enabled complete national coverage with accelerated delivery. No further NIMSA contribution is planned.

  National Air Traffic Services
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the advice provided to his Department by the Civil Aviation Authority on the sale of National Air Traffic Services. [33359]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 327W.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from the Airline Group on the funding requirements for the future of air traffic control services. [33357]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials from my Department and the Treasury have been, and continue to be, involved in discussions with the Airline Group and other relevant parties about the financial position of National Air Traffic Services.

  Air Traffic
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the change in air traffic in the UK since 11 September. [33358]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has not made an estimate and the latest available published monthly traffic data from the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the most comprehensive UK source, is October for airports and September for airlines. However, more recent data are available for some airports and airlines, primarily BAA airports and BA. The most appropriate measure of change is that over the same period in 2000. These show that there has been a recovery in passenger numbers, but not air transport movements, in December 2001.
  1099W

  Traffic changes in 2001 compared with same period in 2000

  Percentage

  BAA

  BA

  Passengers

  Air transport movements

  Passengers

  April-August

  1.4

  4.0

  -2.5

  September

  -6.0

  0.8

  -11.0

  October

  -12.0

  0.3

  -14.6

  November

  -10.6

  -4.0

  -11.5

  December

  -6.4

  -4.8

  -8.5

  September-December

  -8.8

  -1.8

  -11.7

  The impact has not been uniform across all segments of the market, with transatlantic services experiencing the most severe decline. The low cost carriers have continued to experience passenger growth since 11 September.

  City Challenge
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many of the dwellings built or improved under the city challenge scheme for 1992 to 1998 are still occupied. [33656]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the former City Challenge programme, which operated from 1992 to 1998, over 110,000 dwellings were improved or completed in the 31 partnership areas. Information on how many of these dwellings are still occupied is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  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 26291, what specialist credentials Schroder Salomon Smith Barney have that rendered them suitable for this work; and what tendering process took place to select advisers. [33410]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Schroder Salomon Smith Barney has a well established track record advising companies and the UK Government on a wide range of corporate finance transactions including corporate restructuring. Regarding the tendering process, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 25 January 2002, Official Report, column 1103W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002, Ref 28541,Official Report, column 320W, if he will list the schemes that have been previously identified and those which have not. [33404]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State forTransport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002, ref 30241,Official Report, column 320W, which SRA officials are participating in the bid team; and on what contractual basis. [33411]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: No SRA officials are participating in the bid team.
  1100W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions where information is(a) held and (b) presented, regarding the total weekly rail delays, in minutes, caused by (i) Railtrack and (ii) train operating companies. [31584]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack keep records of delay minutes.

  Congestion Scheme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the proposed Central London congestion scheme on public transport and road congestion in areas immediately outside London. [32952]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Department's assessment in relation to trunk roads and motorways is that effects outside the Greater London boundary are likely to be small.

  Assessment of the effects on other roads are for the local traffic authorities concerned to consider in the first instance.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many requests the Department has received under the Data Protection Act 1988 for(a) electronically held information and (b) paper documentation. [33584]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The central Department has received, all told, nine external requests for electronically held personal data and one for manually held records.

  The Department's policy with regard to subject access requests from members of staff is to provide subject access to both manual and electronic records for every such request. Fifty-three subject access requests have been received to date from members of the Department's staff.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what administration fees are charged by the Department for information requests made under the Data Protection Act 1998. [33463]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The standard administration charge made by the Department for information requests from members of the public is £10. There is no charge for requests by present and former members of staff for access to their personal records.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the Department's procedure is for responding to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [33484]

  (2) what the policy of the Department is for ensuring responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 are completed within 40 days; and what their procedure is to achieve this. [33477]

  Dr. Whitehead
  All external subject access requests to the Department are routed to a central unit responsible for co-ordinating responses. From the information
  1101W
  accompanying each request, the request is then forwarded to those parts of the Department which are considered likely to be in possession of personal data of the sort requested. The request will be accompanied by an instruction to trawl through electronic and, where specified, appropriately structured manual records held in those areas of the Department, and return to the co-ordinating unit copies of all personal references uncovered in the course of the trawl.

  These references generally provide a certain amount of context to make them intelligible. The co-ordinating unit finally combines these individual references into a single set of attachments to a covering reply letter, deleting all references to third parties (where permission to reveal such third party references has not been forthcoming) in the document copies being supplied to the applicant.

  All internal subject access requests from staff members are sent to a focal point in Human Resources. Action is initiated by the Data Protection Officer on the day the application is received. An appointment is arranged usually within two weeks of the application for the member of staff to have access to his or her records. Performance is monitored daily to ensure compliance with the set period.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many responses the Department has completed to requests for information made under the Data Protection Act 1998 for(a) electronically held information and (b) paper documentation. [33577]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The central Department has completed six external requests for electronically held personal data and one for manually held records. The Department's policy with regard to subject access requests from members of staff is to provide subject access to both manual and electronic records for every such request. 51 subject access requests from members of the Department's staff have been completed to date.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the longest period of time elapsed is between receiving(a)the administration fee and providing the information requested and (b) a request for information and providing the information requested, under the Data Protection Act. [33456]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In respect of(a) 82 days and in respect of (b) 98 days.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 have been completed(a) within 40, (b) between 40 and 60 and (c) over 60 days after receiving the original letter; and how many are outstanding. [33434]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As regards external subject access requests, two responses have been completed within 40 days, three between 40 and 60 days, and two over 60 days, after receipt of the original request letter. In addition, one is outstanding.

  Of 53 subject access requests received from members of the Department's staff, 50 have been responded to within 40 days. Two are outstanding.
  1102W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed(a) within 40 days of receipt of the £10 fee, (b) between 40 and 60 days of and (c) over 60 days after receiving the administration fee. [33470]

  Dr. Whitehead
  83 per cent, of external subject access requests have been completed within 40 days, and the remaining 17 per cent, in over 60 days, after receipt of the administration fee. No administration fee is charged for requests from members of the Department's staff.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the average cost of processing each information request under the Data Protection Act 1998. [33438]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Costs are incurred in a number of areas of the Department and vary widely between requests. It is therefore not possible to give an average cost of processing each information request.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed(a) within 40 days of receipt of, (b) between 40 and 60 days of receiving and (c) over 60 days after receiving the £10 administration fee.[33565]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As regards external subject access requests, five responses have been completed within 40 days, and one over 60 days, after receipt of the administration fee. One case is outstanding.

  No fee is charged for requests by present and former members of staff for access to their personal records. Of 51 completed subject access requests from members of the Department's staff, 50 have been responded to within 40 days.

  Transport 10-Year Plan
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport,Local Government and the Regions (1) when the total transport 10-year plan financial envelope was increased from £179.7 billion to £181.9 billion; and when and by what means the increase was first announced; [33767]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 149, on the 10-year plan financial envelope, if he will bring forward a supplementary estimate; and if he will make a statement.[33769]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: My Department will seek the resources necessary to deliver the 10-year plan through the normal supply procedures.

  The bulk of the additional £2.2 billion was agreed and announced to the House on 2 April 2001, Official Report, column 8. A number of other changes to the 10-year plan expenditure envelope have been made since publication of the plan, resulting in the overall increase to £181.9 billion announced to the House on 29 January 2002.
  1103W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he secured an additional £2.2 billion of funding from the Treasury for the 10-year transport plan; and if he will make a statement. [33927]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department will seek the resources necessary to deliver the 10-year plan through the normal supply procedures.

  The bulk of the additional £2.2 billion was agreed and announced to the House on 2 April 2001, Official Report, column 8. A number of other changes to the 10-year plan expenditure envelope have been made since publication of the plan, resulting in the overall increase to £181.9 billion announced to the House on 29 January 2002.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend the eligibility for transport action powershift grants for converting cars over five years old to use LPG. [33949]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6 February 2002 [33622].

  Agricultural Buildings
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to review the rating of agricultural buildings to ensure that those who perform more than 10 per cent. of their activities as contract farmers on other farms are rated on their agricultural building. [33898]

  Dr. Whitehead
  On 16 February 2001 we published a consultation paper on extending the agricultural exemption from non-domestic rates to cover all land and buildings used for contract farming, share farming and machinery rings, as well as such land and buildings used by farmers in connection with their own farm. In the Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published 11 December 2001, we said that we would implement those proposals, subject to the necessary primary legislation, which we will introduce when parliamentary time allows.

  Urban Green Spaces Taskforce
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the final report from the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce will be published in April this year as planned; [33977]

  (2) what progress has been made since the publication of the interim report from the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce; and if he will make a statement. [33978]

  Ms Keeble
  Since the publication of its interim report, the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce has made good progress in carrying out its work as programmed in the report. Our current plans are to publish the final report of the task force in April, which will be followed by the Government's policy response in July.

  Planning Applications
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the 1104W
  average time was to process planning applications by each planning authority in England over the last 12 months. [34412]

  Ms Keeble
  The information needed to determine the average time for planning applications to be processed is collected centrally only for a small number of applications mainly relating to mineral extraction and waste disposal (known as "county matters"). These applications, which account for less than 1 per cent. of all planning applications, are often complex and take some time to determine.

  The speed at which decisions are made for the vast majority of planning applications, ie all except "county matters", is measured in terms of the proportion of decisions determined within eight weeks and within 13 weeks. In the year ending September 2001, 63 per cent. of these applications in England were determined within eight weeks and 83 per cent. within 13 weeks.

  More detailed information for each local authority in England on how quickly they process planning applications (using the eight and 13 week criteria) is published by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions in its quarterly Statistics of Planning Applications Bulletin and its annual Development Control Statistics Report. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Debt
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much British Railways' debt was extinguished by the Government in the six months before rail privatisation. [34279]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 29 March 1996 £1,229 million of debt owed by Railtrack to the National Loans Fund was cancelled and on 30 March 1996 Railtrack's obligations in respect of a further £230 million owed to the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) were transferred to DoA Ltd., a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Transport. Also, on 29 March 1996 Railtrack issued debentures acknowledging indebtedness to HM Government of £589 million. With the exception of a £4 million repayment of debt, these debentures were subsequently sold by HM Government in the bond markets.

  Open Skies Agreement
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Government retain the right to negotiate an open skies agreement to the USA following the ruling of the European Court; and if he will make a statement. [34615]

  Mr. Spellar
  We do not yet have a ruling from the European Court of Justice. That is probably some months away. What we do have is the Opinion issued on 31 January by the Advocate General which comprises his advice to the Court. According to his Opinion it remains open to member states to negotiate and conclude open skies agreements with the United States subject to meeting their obligations under Community law.
  1105W

  Policy Development Grants
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to make an order empowering the Electoral Commission to make payments of policy development grants to eligible parties; and if he will make a statement. [34816]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have today laid before Parliament an order, making provision for a scheme, which gives effect to recommendations, submitted by the Electoral Commission to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 4 October 2001, but with modifications agreed with the Commission. The amount of money available for allocation by the Commission in each year for which the scheme has effect is £2 million.

  KCC Speed Interactive Signs
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department will issue type approval for KCC speed interactive signs; and if he will make a statement. [34155]

  Mr. Spellar
  We hope to be in a position to resolve the type approval issues and issue guidance on the use of speed activated signs later in the year.

  Business Rates (Farms)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the amount that farmers incur in business rates when undertaking contractual work is calculated. [33930]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The amount farmers incur in business rates, if they undertake contract farming work, is calculated by reference to the rateable value, as determined by the Valuation Officer, multiplied by the business rate poundage (currently 43.0 pence in the pound).

  The Valuation Officer calculates rateable values in accordance with the definition contained within the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Broadly speaking, this is the rental value of the property, vacant and to let, at the valuation of 1 April 1998. The Valuation Officer will base his or her valuation on rental evidence of similar buildings in the local area or by reference to the closes comparison.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Parthenon Marbles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from the Government of Greece concerning the return to Athens of the Parthenon marbles; and if she will make a statement. [27146]

  Tessa Jowell
  I received a letter from the Greek Minister for Culture, Mr. Evangelos Venizelos, in June 2001 to which I replied emphasising the importance of cultural connections between Britain and Greece. In connection with the Parthenon Sculptures I reminded the Minister of the position of Her Majesty's Government, which had recently been restated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, namely that it is our view that the 1106W
  sculptures were acquired legally and that they are best housed in the British Museum in a multi-cultural context, seen free of charge by up to 5 million visitors a year.

  It may also be helpful to be clear about the responsibility of the British Museum for the Sculptures. The Trustees have a statutory duty to protect their collections and this duty could only be over-ridden by primary legislation amending Section 5 of the British Museum Act 1963, relating to the disposal of objects in the collections.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in each of the last four years specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30186]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon Member to the answer given to him by my right hon Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday 4 February,Official Report, column 707W.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the European Commission about raising the sterling threshold for the requirement for export licences for cultural goods; and if she will make a statement. [29967]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and DCMS officials use every available opportunity to press for the limits to be updated at least in line with inflation, as provided in Council Regulation (EEC) 3911/92 on the export of cultural goods. We have also welcomed the Commission's new initiatives to contribute to the effective functioning of the mechanisms set up by the Regulation, including making the maximum use of new technologies to improve its implementation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the estimated projected annual increase is in the number of export licences for cultural goods consequential on the decision by the EU Commission to leave the EU monetary threshold unchanged. [29966]

  Dr. Howells
  The effect of the EC Commission's decision to leave the thresholds unchanged has been to increase the number of licences issued by 69 per cent. between 1993 and 2000.

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to put in place a strategy to implement her Department's role in attracting world class sporting events. [30376]

  Mr. Caborn
  The PIU have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to carry out a joint study with DCMS examining long term sports policy. It will consider the roles and responsibilities of Government, the private and voluntary sectors in helping sport better achieve the objectives of increased grassroots participation in sport and elite sporting excellence. The
  1107W
  PIU project team will seek to clarify the roles and responsibilities and interventions of Government to help sport better achieve its own objectives and develop an overall strategy for guiding Government's decisions on sports policy, including major events; in the context of Government's own wider objectives.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what methods were considered to dispose of items from the millennium experience; [30014]

  (2)if she will list the items from the millennium experience that were disposed of other than by sale by the New Millennium Experience Company, stating for each one (a) its original purchase price, (b) its estimated value at time of sale, (c) the amount it was sold for, (d) its method of disposal and (e) the reason for that method of disposal; [30011]

  (3)if she will list the items from the millennium experience offered for sale by the New Millennium Experience Company stating for each (a) the original purchase price, (b) the estimated value at time of sale, (c) the number of bids received, (d) the amount of the highest bid, (e) whether the item was sold to the highest bidder and where it was not to give a reason and (f) the amount it was sold for; [30012]

  (4)how many bids for items from the millennium experience offered for sale by the New Millennium Experience Company were (a) not honoured and (b) bogus; [30013]

  (5)if she will publish the total (a) estimated value of and (b) final price received for, the items from the millennium experience offered for sale by the New Millennium Experience Company. [30015]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Some 17,000 items were offered for sale by NMEC in an auction organised by Henry Butcher International held between 27 February and 2 March 2001. Henry Butcher valued these items at a total of £2 million. Around 10,500 of these items were sold in the auction and these were sold to the highest bidders in each case. As is the case at many auctions, a small proportion of the items were not paid for, and hence not collected, by successful bidders. Total income received from auction sales which were concluded was £3.5 million. Some 450 items were withheld from the sale because they were felt to be of use to a future owner of the dome. It was subsequently decided to sell these items, and items which had not sold in the auction, by private treaty. It was felt that this was more cost effective than seeking to hold a second auction. Henry Butcher International was retained to advise on the private treaty sales and benchmarked rates against auction prices in order to ensure value for money and tenders were sought for major items. Sales by private treaty realised £1 million. A feature of NMEC's balance sheet was that many assets purchased or developed for the millennium experience were unique to the dome. The costs to develop or buy these bespoke assets were much higher than the subsequent realisable values and it was always recognised that the auction would cover only a fraction of those creation costs. The total received by NMEC for the sale of assets in the auction and by private treaty was therefore £4.5 million. A further £1.3 million was achieved by the
  1108W
  sale of certain assets to original suppliers under terms of contracts with NMEC. Not all the detailed information requested about the individual assets is available. The remainder is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many pensioner households in England and Wales receive a free television licence; [32720]

  (2) what was the cost of providing free television licences to pensioner households in England and Wales in the last 12 months. [32718]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as Licensing Authority the free television licence concession for the over-75s, is not able to provide a breakdown by nation of the number of free licences currently in force in the United Kingdom. However, in the 12 months to December 2001, 3.398 million free licences were issued in England and Wales. The cost of these licences was £335 million, excluding administrative costs.

  The cost of administering the concession in England and Wales cannot be disaggregated from the total for the United Kingdom, since much of it is systems-related and applies to the scheme as a whole. The estimated cost of administering the scheme throughout the United Kingdom in the months to December 2001 was £10.1 million.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32814]

  Dr. Howells
  The normal retirement age for all staff in the Department is 60. In the Royal Parks Agency the normally retirement age for staff is 60, except for the following:Staff with reserved rights, covered by the 20/60 rule whereby they can stay until they have completed 20 years services or reached age 65, whichever is the earlier:
  Royal Parks Police: eight
  Non-uniformed staff: four
  Staff covered by reserved rights, following non-industrialisation of posts, to remain employed until their 65th birthday:
  Wildlife Officers: five
  Where there are management reasons justifying an extension beyond the 60th birthday, not normally for more than a year. Management Board level approval is required:
  Non-uniformed staff: one.

  DCMS and its agency are reviewing their retirement policy following the recommendations of the PIU "Winning the Generation Game" report.

  Ticket Sales (London)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made as to the effect of the events of 11 September on
  1109W
  (a) theatre ticket and (b) museum ticket sales in the Cities of London and Westminster; and if she will make a statement. [33704]

  Dr. Howells
  I have asked the Society of London Theatres, National Gallery, Tate Britain and Museum of London to provide this information. When it is available, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to encourage participation by her Department in fair trade fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33549]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has no specific formal participation in fair trade fortnight although some NDPBs may be publicising the event within their own activities. My Department centrally supports the aim of fair trade and seeks to influence the supply chain to utilise fair trade produce wherever possible. A display is being considered for our own staff restaurant and the caterers have been encouraged to mark the event with more than their usual fair trade menus.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will respond to the progress report she received on 29 November 2001 about the Arts Council of England's proposals to merge the regional arts boards to create a single organisation for arts funding; and if she will place a copy of her response in the Library. [33310]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts responded on behalf of the Secretary of State to the Arts Council's latest proposals for a single organisation for arts funding on 21 December 2001. I am arranging for copies of the letter to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the responsibilities of her special advisers. [33126]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The responsibilities of my special advisers are set out in the model contract for special advisers. Special advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work of Government and the work of the Government Party overlap and it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved. They are an additional resource for the Minister providing advice from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the civil service.

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total expenditure of his Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main 1110W
  contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been (a) companies whose registered office is in(i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33685]

  Dr. Howells
  Total expenditure on IT systems and support broken down annually from May 1997 is as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1.9

  1998–99

  2.1

  1999–2000

  3.3

  2000–01

  3.6

  2001–02

  3.1

  The number of IT contracts let and relevant companies per year is as follows:

  Company

  Number

  1997–98

  BT, Maine and Vodafone

  4

  1998–99

  BT, and Project Telecom

  2

  1999–2000

  BT

  2

  2000–01

  BT

  1

  2001–02

  BT

  3

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts were let by her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33844]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has let the following contracts:

  Year

  Consultancy

  £

  1998–99

  Deloitte & Touche

  227,000

  1998–99

  KPMG

  23,000

  1999–2000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  68,000

  2000–01

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  61,000

  2000–01

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  22,000

  2001–02

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  96,000

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what legal advice she has sought on the policy in the Royal Parks constabulary to set retirement age levels depending on length of service; [32659]

  (2) whether it is her policy to permit some officers in the Royal Parks constabulary to work until 65 years of age and not others; and if she will make a statement. [32655]
  1111W
  Dr. Howells
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency and I have asked its Chief Executive, William Weston, to reply.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Chris Grayling, dated 7 February 2002:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the retirement age of officers of the Royal Parks Constabulary, as this is an operational matter which has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency.
  Prior to 1st January 1994 the normal retirement age for officers was 60, but those with less than 20 years service can work until they have completed 20 years service or reached the age of 65, whichever is the sooner, subject to continued satisfactory performance.
  Under an agreement with the Trade Union, all officers recruited after 1st January 1994 retire at the age of 60, regardless of their length of service, in line with the standard conditions for non-uniformed staff in the Agency.
  The Agency has not sought legal advice on this matter.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [34224]

  Dr. Howells
  All thefts and losses by fraud are immediately reported as security breaches. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has only had cause to report the theft of six SIMM memory modules in 2001 and one mobile telephone charger in 2002. There have been no reported losses of lower value items other than those stated.

  Rugby League/Rugby Union (Funding)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding has been received from the National Lottery by(a) rugby league and (b) rugby union since its inception. [32880]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Total funding received from the National Lottery for (a) Rugby League is £12,557,073 and for (b) Rugby Union is £38,044,111.

  Youth Hostel Association
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from the Youth Hostel Association; and what recent discussions she has had with the Youth Hostel Association on help to individual youth hostels affected by foot and mouth related loss of business. [34472]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and I met the Chief Executive of the Youth Hostels Association (England and Wales) on 7 February. On 5 February, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a countryside access recovery fund that will be available to support projects to promote access to and/or understanding of the countryside by not-for-profit organisations, such as the Youth Hostels Association.
  1112W

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many employees in(a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if she will make a statement. [32315]

  Dr. Howells
  No employees in the Department or in the Royal Parks Agency have had private medical insurance provided for them in any year since and including 1997–98.

  Information relating to the Department's non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-League Football
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met representatives from the(a) Nationwide Conference, (b) Doctor Martens' league, (c) Unibond league and (d) Ryman league. [34102]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met with representatives from the Doctor Martens' league, Unibond league or Ryman league.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport met the chairman and chief executive of the Nationwide Conference on 16 July 2001 to discuss a range of non-league football issues.

  Archives
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve access to archives. [34561]

  Dr. Howells
  In January last year my Department published social inclusion policy guidance for archives in the document "Libraries, Museums, Galleries and Archives for All" in January 2001. We are now working with Resource, the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, and the National Council on Archives to ensure local authority archives recognise their role in achieving greater access and inclusion. With our encouragement, the National Council on Archives has set up a network of Regional Archive Councils which published Archives Strategies for each region in 2001. We have also been working with the Inter-Departmental Archives Committee (IDAC) to create an Action Plan for Archives which will help to encourage greater awareness of and better access to archives. This will be published later in the year.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what rights and conditions of public access to the Royal parks are observed by those bodies responsible for their upkeep and administration; [34363]

  (2)what the area of each Royal park is; and what the conditions are on what trading in the Royal parks is permitted; [34362]

  (3)which buildings in the Royal parks are not the responsibility of the Royal Parks Agency; [34364]
  1113W
  (4) what grants are paid to (a) the Royal Parks Agency and (b) other bodies for their work in administering and maintaining the Royal parks; [34366]

  Dr. Howells
  Responsibility or the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency and I have asked its chief executive, William Weston, to reply.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 7 February 2002:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about public access and other matters relating to the Royal Parks.
  The Royal Parks are part of the hereditary possessions of the Crown. The public do not have any legal right to use the Parks, public access depends on the grace and favour of the Crown, although there may be public rights of way across the land. The Royal Parks Agency manages the Royal Parks under powers derived from s22 Crown Lands Act 1851. As part of its statutory management function the Agency permits the public to use the Parks for recreational purposes, subject to regulations issued under the Parks Regulation Acts 1872–1926 which are considered necessary to secure proper management, preserve order and prevent abuse within the Parks. The current regulations are the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997.
  The Royal Parks Agency receive grant-in-aid under a funding agreement with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for carrying out the Secretary of State's management responsibilities under the Crown Lands Act.
  The area covered by each of the Royal parks is as follows

  Hectares

  Hyde Park

  140

  Kensington Gardens

  111

  Regent's Park (incl. Primrose Hill)

  197

  St. James's Park

  34

  Green Park

  16

  Greenwich Park

  73

  Richmond Park

  955

  Bushy Park

  450

  The Parks are intended to provide a respite from the surrounding urban landscape and commercial activities are therefore generally not allowed in the Royal Parks. Where it is necessary or desirable to provide amenities for park visitors, for example refreshments, boating or deckchairs they are provided under licence from the Secretary of State by private contractors following competitive tender.
  The following buildings in the Royal Parks are not the responsibility of the Royal Parks Agency.

  Bushy Park

  Upper Lodge

  Bushy House

  Hawthorne Cottage

  Barton's Cottage

  Richmond Park

  Thatched House Lodge

  White Lodge

  Pembroke Cottage

  Greenwich Park

  Royal Observatory

  Kensington Gardens

  Kensington Palace

  The Orangery

  1114W
  Regent's Park

  Winfield House

  St John's Lodge

  The Holm

  Regent's Lodge

  London Zoo

  Restoration Studio.

  Osborne Estate Act
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to(a) implement and (b) amend the Osborne Estate Act 1902; and when the premises of the former King Edward VII Convalescent Home for Officers will be returned to use in accordance with the provisions of that Act. [34365]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering how she should meet her responsibilities under the Osborne Estate Act 1902 to devote part of Osborne House for the benefit of members of the armed forces and civil service until such time as she is able to secure legislation to repeal the statutory requirement.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total amount of money collected by the Child Support Agency was in each of the last seven years. [25017]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 6 February 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You asked what the total amount of money collected by the Child Support Agency was in each of the last seven years.
  The table on Annex 1 shows those amounts collected and arranged for the last seven years.
  Amounts shown as collected are amounts which are paid via the Agency, while amounts shown as arranged are paid directly between the non-resident parent and the parent or person with care following a CSA assessment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex 1: Maintenance collected and arranged

  £million

  Year

  Collected

  Arranged

  1994–95

  79.422

  133.233

  1995–96

  133.508

  136.913

  1996–97

  214.911

  153.291

  1997–98

  317.576

  202.987

  1998–99

  409.819

  225.854

  1999–2000

  473.609

  238.633

  2000–01

  516.979

  240.551

  Source:

  Child Support Agency Annual Reports and Accounts
  1115W

  Pensions Education Campaign
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many television advertisements were paid for by expenditure on the revised Pensions Education Campaign. [18981]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pensions Education campaign promotes the Government's aim to combat poverty and promote security and independence in retirement for future pensioners. The campaign encourages future pensioners to save for their retirement where they can afford to, and provides impartial information on their pension options to help them make informed decisions. The television advertisements are part of this wider activity.

  Five different television advertisements (two 40-second advertisements, two 20-second advertisements and a 10-second advertisement) were paid for out of expenditure on the Pensions Education (Working Dogs) campaign.

  Television advertising started again on 19 January 2002 as part of wider campaign activity and will run until the end of March.

  Regulations
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many regulations his Department has proposed to Parliament since June; what regulatory impact assessments have been made for those regulations his Department has implemented; and what plans his Department has to reduce the number of regulations affecting small businesses. [21972]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department has introduced 37 statutory instruments, including 15 commencement orders, between 1 June and 31 December 2001. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) has been published in respect of provisions in one of these—the Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services)(Adjustment of Premises) Regulations 2001 which comes into force on 1 October 2004. A copy of the RIA is available in the Library. No other instruments introduced in this period impact on business.

  The Department's policy is to eliminate unnecessary regulation and to minimise the burdens imposed by necessary regulation. We aim to ensure that regulations are necessary; give effective protection; balance benefit, cost and risk; are fair and command public confidence.

  The Department is also committed to reducing, wherever possible, existing regulatory burdens, and is contributing to the Government's regulatory reform action plan, that includes delivering reforms which are beneficial to small businesses and the citizen.

  Lone Parent Families
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of people living in lone parent families in each year since 1997 were in(a) the bottom 30 per cent., (b) the bottom 40 per cent, and (c) the bottom 50 per cent, of the income distribution. [27765]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information available is in the table.
  1116W
  Following our reforms of the tax and benefit systems to help make work pay, we are seeing a steady reduction in the number of lone parents at the lower end of the income distribution. Results for 1999–2000 are the latest available. They will not include the full impact of the working families tax credit, further increases in allowances for children or improvements in the labour market that have occurred since; these will have increased the incomes of lone parent families.

  Percentage of individuals living in lone-parent families in the bottom 30, 40 and 50 per cent, of the income distribution, including the self-employed is in the table.

  Percentage of individuals below percentiles of the income distribution

  Bottom 30 per cent.

  Bottom 40 per cent.

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  Income before housing costs

  1994–95

  60

  74

  84

  1995–96

  59

  73

  83

  1996–97

  65

  78

  86

  1997–98

  63

  76

  84

  1998–99

  63

  77

  86

  1999–2000

  61

  75

  84

  Income after housing costs

  1994–95

  67

  79

  87

  1995–96

  67

  78

  85

  1996–97

  71

  81

  87

  1997–98

  69

  79

  85

  1998–99

  69

  80

  87

  1999–2000

  67

  79

  85

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland.

  2. The income measure used in HBAI is weekly net (disposable), equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  3. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, council tax band and a number of other demographic variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. All proportions are rounded to the nearest per cent.

  4. The estimates are presented on both a Before Housing Costs income (BHC) and an After Housing Costs income (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions.

  Source:

  FR

  Pension Credit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will provide figures on the same basis as tables 3 and 4 of "The Pension Credit: long-term projections", showing(a)the cost of the basic state pension if increased in line with earnings, (b) the additional cost of increasing the basic pension in line with earnings and (c) the additional yield of national insurance contributions if they remain the same proportion of contributors' earnings as in 2002–03; [30394]

  (2) if he will provide figures on the same basis as tables 1 and 2 of "The Pension Credit long-term projections", showing the effect on the cost of the pension credit if the proportion of relevant income disregarded were reduced from 60 per cent, to (a) 50 and (b) 40 per cent., assuming

  1117W
  that the guarantee credit is uprated in line with average earnings and the savings credit threshold is uprated in line with prices. [30395]

  Mr. McCartney
  "The Pension Credit: Long-term projections" sets out the Department for Work and Pensions' illustrative projections of the future cost and coverage of the Pension Credit under various assumptions. These projections should be treated as broad-brush illustrations of the effect of various assumptions rather than firm forecasts of potential costs. The results can be thought of as providing broad lower and upper ranges of potential costs.

  The projections set out in the paper are sufficient to inform the Department's policy making and to provide assurance that the Government's spending on pensions remains sustainable in the long term. The further analysis requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Pension Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report,column 855W, he will list the means-tested state benefits that attribute income from individual private pension funds not yet annuitised or drawn down; and how many (a)claimants and(b)unsuccessful claimants have been subject to such pension tariff in the last 12 months. [31454]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows. The following state benefits take into account income from occupational or personal pensions:

  Income support (or minimum income guarantee)

  Jobseeker's allowance (income based)

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit.

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) men and (ii) women over pension age who are entitled to a full rate of basic state pension. [33774]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The information requested is in the table:

  Number of men and women over state pension age who are entitled to a full basic pension of £67.50 at 31 March 2001: Great Britain

  Male

  Female

  Number of recipients of full basic pension (thousand)

  3,458.5

  3,275.5

  Percentage entitled to basic state pension

  92

  49

  Notes:

  1.All 5 per cent, samples are subject to sampling error.

  2.Figures are rounded to the nearest 100, percentages to the nearest whole per cent.

  3.Figures exclude Channel Islands and overseas cases.

  Source:

  Pensions Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2001 based on a 5 per cent, sample
  1118W

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes he proposes to make to housing benefit when pension credit is introduced. [35156]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government's aim in introducing pension credit is to guarantee pensioners a decent income in retirement and, for the first time, to reward those with savings rather than penalise them. Housing benefit makes a vital contribution to this strategy, by allowing pensioners to access affordable housing.

  Under pension credit, most pensioners over 65 will be asked for a statement of their circumstances every five years. Housing benefit awards will follow the same timings. From 2003, we will no longer ask pensioners to make a repeat claim for housing benefit every year.

  This will reduce burdens on pensioners, simplify administration and allow local authorities to focus more resources on targeting fraud, rather than processing routine renewal claims.

  We believe that it would be wrong to deny housing benefit recipients the extra support that pension credit will provide. We will therefore raise the housing benefit income threshold by the maximum amount of the pension credit savings reward, to an expected level of £113.80 for single pensioners in 2003. In addition, we will treat pensioners' capital more generously, taking into account £1 for every £500 instead of every £250 of qualifying savings.

  As a result of these changes, 1.9 million pensioner households will get more help, or help for the first time, through housing benefit.

SCOTLAND

  Air Traffic Control (Prestwick)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps her Department has taken to monitor the UK Airline Group's capability to fulfil its commitment to build a new Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick; [33939]

  (2) what contingency plans Her Majesty's Government have to ensure that the new Air Traffic Control Centre for Prestwick goes ahead if the UK Airline Group cannot raise the necessary capital. [33938]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answers 6 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Airline Group is contractually committed to the construction, completion, commissioning and entry into full operational service of the new Scottish centre at Prestwick as part of the public-private partnership deal for National Air Traffic Services.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the allocation of the programmed expenditure of £0.3 million referred to on page 16 of her Department's 2001 annual report. [24770]
  1119W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The programme expenditure is in respect of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland. The Commission is currently undertaking the 5th review of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the reason for the extent of the change from(a)1999–2000 to 2000–01 (b) 2000–01 to 2001–02 to the costs of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. [24764]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The costs of the Boundary Commission for Scotland have changed in these years due to preparation for and work involved in undertaking the 5th review of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, which was formally commenced on 29 June 2001.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on progress with her Department's action plan to address(a)the relevant elements of the Modernising Government White Paper and (b)the more detailed proposals for Civil Service reform. [24769]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department is continuing to address the various components of the Modernising Government programme and civil service reform in conjunction with the Cabinet Office and the Scottish Executive.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Department's budget in each of the last four years was not spent in the year for which it was allocated. [24774]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. In 1999–2000 the Department spent 96.1 per cent, of its budget and in 2000–01 it spent 95.9 per cent.

  Departmental IT
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the change in costs resulting from her Department's IT strategy. [24767]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department's information systems are kept under review by staff as part of their normal duties. Any changes in costs in the current year are expected to be small: the costs of any future changes are not yet known.

  Depreciation and Capital Charges
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the reasons for the extent of the change in the costs of depreciation and capital charges from 1999–2000 to 2000–01. [24765]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The figures for depreciation and capital charges for 1999–2000 are therefore for a nine month period.

  For my Department, the cost of capital arises mainly from the occupancy of Dover House in Whitehall. The building was professionally revalued on 31 March 1999 and, under current accounting procedures, is due to have
  1120W
  a professional revaluation every five years. Depreciation of other assets is by equal instalments over their estimated useful life.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the administration costs to her Department in(a) 2000–01 and (b)2001–02. [24772]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The running costs provision of the Scotland Office was unchanged between 2000–01 and 2001–02. The Department took additional provision of £334,000 in 2001–02 to meet the cost of electoral publicity associated with the 2001 General Election. The provision for the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland rose from £170,000 in 2000–01 to £300,000 in 2001–02 as the Commission began work on the 5th review of parliamentary constituencies.

  Whole of Government Accounts Project
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the financial implications for her office of its participation in the Whole of Government accounts project. [24773]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Work on the Whole of Government accounts project will be undertaken by staff as part of their normal duties and I expect any additional costs to be small.

  Departmental Operating Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the reasons for the extent of the change in the operating costs of the Department from 1999–2000 to 2000–01. [24766]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The operating costs of the Department for 1999–2000 were for a nine month period.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) in what proportion of cases the Department has paid accounts within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice in 2001; [24778]

  (2) in what proportion of contractual agreements the Department has made payments in accordance with the agreed timetable. [24779]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 1999–2000 my Department paid 98.4 per cent, of its accounts within 30 days. In 2000–01 the figure was 99.33 per cent.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the target to provide any readily available free published information within five working days of receipt of a request applies to anything other than the Department's Service Delivery Agreement. [24781]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No.
  1121W

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the efficiency savings declared by her Department in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [24771]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The financial provision for 2000–01 and 2001–02 was set at a constant level and the Department will absorb any inflationary pressures from within, its budget.

  Management Information Systems
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on progress with the consolidation of financial and management information systems referred to on page 16 of the 2001 departmental report. [24768]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Progress with consolidation of the Department's financial and management information systems is continuing.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the increased public expenditure in Scotland between now and 2003–04 is expected accounted for by staff costs. [24775]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Public expenditure on staff costs is a matter for the relevant bodies or departments operating in Scotland. The proportion of staff costs to other expenditure by the Scotland Office is expected to remain broadly unchanged.

  Concordats
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with members of the Scottish Executive about the resource implications of the(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral concordats agreed with UK Government Departments. [24776]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary texts are agreements between the Government and the devolved Administrations on how they intend conducting relations between the Administrations. The Memorandum of Understanding reflects best practice on issues such as co-operation, exchange of information, correspondence and parliamentary business. Supplementary texts add more detail for the international and EU fields, statistics and financial assistance to industry.

  A revised version of the Memorandum of Understanding was published on 18 December 2001 as Command Paper 5240. Three hundred copies were printed, at a cost of £3,851. These costs were met from the Cabinet Office budget. The main distribution medium will be via the Cabinet Office's website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk.

  Scotland Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2000; [24784]
  1122W
  (2)if she will make a statement on the costs to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions by the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2001; [24782]

  (3)if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2000; [24787]

  (4) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (British Wool Marketing Board) Order 2000; [24791]

  (5) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 2000; [24792]

  (6) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) (No. 2) Order 2000; [24785]

  (7) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 2000; [24790]

  (8) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.)(No. 2) Order 2000; [24783]

  (9) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 4) Order 2000; [24788]

  (10) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2000; [24789]

  (11) if she will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements)(Specification) (No. 2) Order 2000; [24786]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There is no separately identifiable cost to public funds for the implementation of any of these orders, but I would expect it to be minimal in each case.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Wye Navigation Order
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when discussions on the Wye Navigation Order began. [34148]

  Mr. Meacher
  The National Rivers Authority applied for an order under the Transport Works Act 1992 on 21 March 1996. Its application was subsequently taken over by the Environment Agency.

  Noise Pollution
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce noise pollution in the UK. [33736]

  Mr. Meacher
  Much has been done to address noise from transport and industry including: reducing the level of noise generated by individual vehicles and aircraft;
  1123W
  traffic management schemes; resurfacing roads with low noise surfaces; and addressing noise at the planning stage of new noise generation or noise sensitive developments. Such action has considerably reduced the output of noise from individual sources but has often failed to reduce the overall ambient noise because of other factors, such as the growth in the number of vehicles on our roads. We are developing a strategic approach to build on the progress already made. A consultation seeking views on the first steps towards an Ambient Noise Strategy in England was launched on 20 December last year. A significant part of this strategic approach will be an exercise to build on the noise mapping already carried out of the major transport and industrial noise sources across England. The first stage of this exercise, for which £13 million has been set aside, will start later this year. The strategy will also act as a foundation to the implementation of the forthcoming European directive on the assessment and management of environmental noise which will address ambient noise across the whole of the UK.

  Dibden Bay Public Inquiry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role the Department has in the Dibden Bay Public Inquiry; and if she will make a statement. [31631]

  Mr. Meacher
  It will be for the inquiry inspector to consider all issues pertaining to the proposed development and then to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Applications for licences for the dredging, and disposal of dredged waste, associated with the proposed development have been made to the Department under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The issues raised at the inquiry will, in part, inform the decision-making process in respect of those consents.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the risk assessments that support the relaxing of controls over livestock markets, animal movements and countryside activities. [35049]

  Alun Michael
  I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of a document setting out the veterinary basis for the interim livestock movements regime, along with Veterinary Risk Assessments on Markets, Sheep Shearing, Sheep Dipping and Scanning, Footpaths and Hunting; and a preliminary risk analysis of the 20-day standstill rule carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff in his Department have been seconded to jobs in the(a) private and (b) public sector in each of the last four years. [31774]
  1124W
  Mr. Leslie
  Information on secondments of civil servants to other sectors (interchange) is recorded separately by the individual Departments to which they belong and is collated by the Cabinet Office as detailed in the table which has been placed in the Library.

  Civil Service Entrants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of administrative fast stream entrants to the Civil Service in each of the last four years has been(a)female, (b) members of ethnic minority groups, (c) from independent schools and went to Oxford and Cambridge and (d) have (i) arts and (ii) science degrees. [34045]

  Mr. Leslie
  Our aim is to increase awareness and attract applications from a diverse range of candidates to the Fast Stream Development Programme. We do not collate data on the schools that entrants have attended. The information on gender, ethnicity, Oxford and Cambridge and arts and science degrees is as follows:

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Female

  Percentage

  47.7

  50

  38.7

  39

  Number

  203

  153

  91

  108

  Ethnic minority

  Percentage

  6.8

  5.9

  3.4

  2.5

  Number

  29

  18

  8

  7

  Oxbridge

  Percentage

  32.2

  30.1

  34.5

  34.3

  Number

  137

  92

  81

  95

  Percentage

  Arts

  Science related

  Other

  2000–01

  70

  22

  8

  1999–2000

  74

  20

  6

  1998–99

  76

  19

  5

  1997–98

  72

  21

  7

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Remand Centres
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reintroduce purposeful activity for the inmates of remand centres. [33715]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: It is not necessary to reintroduce purposeful activity for young offenders in remand centres, as such activity has not ceased. Prisoners in young offender establishments, including remand centres, spent an average of 23.1 hours a week in purposeful activity in 2000–01. The Government are committed to building on their youth justice reforms to improve the standard of custodial accommodation and programmes for 18 to 20-year-olds. This is expected to increase the purposeful activity available to remand and sentenced prisoners in that age group.
  1125W

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each of the last two years concerned convictions from a magistrates' court; and what proportion this is of the total conviction applications from all courts. [32471]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not collect routinely the statistics requested, and they could be obtained only by disproportionate cost. However following the introduction of an electronic case database from 1 April 2001 recent data are available.

  In the period 1 April 2001–31 December 2001, 616 applications were received of which 31 (5 per cent.) were applications concerning convictions from magistrates courts.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of applicants to the Criminal Cases Review Commission have the assistance of(a) legal aid and (b) legal advice and assistance. [32481]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is not known what proportion of applicants have the assistance of legal aid. 51 per cent, of applicants, whose cases were under review, had some form of legal representation.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average times were(a) in 2001 and (b) in 2002 between the lodging of an application in respect of a crown court conviction to the CCRC and the issuing of a referral or of a minded-to-refuse letter. [32487]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not collect routinely the statistics requested, and they could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) staff numbers and (b) funding have been of (i) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (ii) the Joint Entry Clearance Unit for each of the last five years; and what levels are planned for the next two years. [30989]

  Angela Eagle
  The staff numbers in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (actual and estimated) are shown in the table:

  Staff numbers

  April 1997

  5,697

  April 1998

  5,160

  April 1999

  5,750

  April 2000

  6,582

  April 2001

  9,757

  April 2002

  10,878

  April 2003

  12,500

  April 2004

  12,900

  On the funding of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18 January 2002, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), Official Report, column 546W.
  1126W
  The Joint Entry Clearance Unit (JECU) was established in June 2000 with an establishment of 59 staff. This was increased to 76 in the following year but there are no plans for further staff increases.

  Details of JECU's costs and funding (past and future plans) are given in the Foreign and Commonwealth Department Report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why his Department is considering using the RAF Turnhouse site to build an accommodation centre for asylum seekers [32517]

  Angela Eagle
  The Royal Air Force (RAF) Turnhouse site is one of eight potential sites presently under consideration for the building of trial accommodation centres for asylum seekers.

  Criteria used for the selection of potential sites included; sites with the capacity to cater for several hundred residents plus facilities either as a new-build or conversion, and a reasonable geographical spread beyond the south-east of England.

  Women Murderers
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the women convicted of murder who are the subject of applications to the Criminal Case Review Commission are still serving custodial sentences. [32502]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not collect routinely the statistics requested. However, the introduction of a new electronic database with effect from 1 April 2001 means the Commission can provide recent data. Of the 80 applications concerning offences of murder received from 1 April to 31 December 2001, five were from women. We are unable to say how many of these five are still in custody because of the disproportionate cost involved in obtaining this information.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers, and by what criteria he sets the tariff for persons serving life sentences. [33081]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State sets tariffs only for adults convicted of murder. He does so under the discretionary powers presently contained in section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, and in accordance with the administrative arrangements set out in the written answer of 30 November 1983,Official Report column 505, by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, and a number of subsequent parliamentary statements.

  In setting the tariff in a particular case the Secretary of State gives consideration to all the circumstances relating to the offence, any mitigating and aggravating factors, the recommendations made by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, and any relevant representations made about the case.
  1127W

  Cemeteries
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations accepted in the Government response to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs report on cemeteries. [33653]

  Beverley Hughes
  The first meeting of the new advisory group was held in December 2001. A draft work plan to take forward work arising from the Committee's recommendations, some of which fall to other Government Departments and agencies, is now under consideration by group members.

  The findings of a research project commissioned last year to provide information about the condition and management of cemeteries in England and Wales will be available shortly.

  I understand that in December 2001 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions jointly published "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future", reporting the Government's review of policies towards the historic environment.

  I also understand that action has been taken by the Health and Safety Executive to address memorial safety and, together with English Heritage, the management of risks within the historic environment. English Heritage is planning to produce its guidance on the care and maintenance of historic cemeteries in April 2002.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are(a)in custody and (b) on bail following charges connected with the fraudulent misuse of individual learning accounts; [33084]

  (2) how many people in each police authority have been (a) arrested and (b) charged for offences relating to fraud concerning the individual learning accounts programme; [33082]

  (3)how many arrests have been made since 13 December 2001 concerning individual learning account fraud; [33263]

  (4)how many prosecutions have been taken out against people accused of fraud relating to individual learning accounts; [33083]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information held centrally by my Department on fraud, whether relating to persons held in custody, arrested, or proceeded against, does not allow fraud in connection with individual learning accounts to be distinguished from other types of fraud, as the circumstances of each offence are not collected.

  Immigration Appeals
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given to immigration staff about serving appeal decisions; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [27187]

  Angela Eagle
  The personal serving of appeals determinations is a new process and instructions to staff are constantly being refined in the light of operational experience. It is not advisable to publish these at present 1128W
  but arrangements will be made to place a copy in the Library once operational procedures have been fully evaluated and instructions finalised.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the criteria used to identify the eight sites for the proposed asylum accommodation centres. [31730]

  Angela Eagle
  Eight potential sites have so far been identified. The criteria used for their selection included: sites with the capacity to cater for several hundred residents plus facilities either as new-build or conversion and a reasonable geographical spread beyond the south east of England. The criteria for selection for the final sites has yet to be decided.

  Racism and Xenophobia
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for implementing the EU Council Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia as it relates to(a) religion or belief and (b) national origin. [32836]

  Angela Eagle
  Negotiations on the European Commission's proposal for a Council Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia are at a very early stage. The Government will consider proposals for implementing the framework decision once a final text has been agreed.

  Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the volume of(a) heroin and (b) cocaine imported into the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years. [33029]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  On the basis of a study published last year we broadly estimate the size of the United Kingdom market as about 22 tonnes for cocaine and crack and 31 tonnes for heroin. Estimates for earlier years are not available.

  Police Reform
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual representations he has received from police officers about his White Paper on Police Reform. [26077]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 5 February 2002 to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey),Official Report, column 869W.

  Witness Support Schemes
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals there are to(a) publicise the work of witness support schemes and (b) secure recruits for them locally. [32683]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  All victims of reported crime are given or sent the "Victims of Crime" leaflet. This includes information about the Witness Service. Those called to appear as witnesses are sent the "Witness in Court"
  1129W
  leaflet, which provides a variety of useful information, including details of the Witness Service and contact information.

  The Witness Service is provided through the organisation Victim Support. The Home Office grant to Victim Support in the current financial year is £25 million, an increase of £6 million on last year's figure. The extra money has enabled Victim Support to replicate in magistrates' courts the witness support services they already provide in the Crown court. Local victim support schemes publicise their work and recruit volunteers in a variety of ways.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Complaints
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what systems are in place for monitoring complaints from members of the public about the service provided by her Department; and if she will make a statement [30849]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are various arrangements for dealing with and monitoring time to deal with complaints in different parts of the Department. These involve a range of time limits and targets. For example, complaints about the service provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters are recorded and monitored by the Departmental Correspondence Unit which aims to deal fully with complaints within 20 working days. The Public Record Office and HM Land Registry aim to respond to complaints within 10 working days and five working days respectively. In the Court Service, written customer complaints are recorded by civil courts on the Business Management System and records are kept of those dealt with by Crown courts and at regional offices, and also by Court Service Headquarters. However, from April 2002 a computerised system will be introduced for all courts, regional offices and Court Service Headquarters to record and analyse all complaints from court users. This will include verbal, telephone and e-mail complaints, as well as those in writing.

  Details about the complaints procedures produced by the Lord Chancellor's departments and agencies are published on the relevant websites. The procedures make it clear that complainants who are not satisfied with the response they receive can ask for the matter to be reviewed. If the complainant remains dissatisfied following the review then he or she may ask his or her Member of Parliament to raise the matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  The judiciary are of course independent of the Department but the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, is responsible for investigating complaints about the personal conduct of Judges. He cannot consider complaints about judicial decisions. As a general rule he will investigate any complaint that a member of the judiciary has behaved in a way that falls short of the standards that both he and the public expects.
  1130W

  International Legal Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of EU enlargement on international legal services. [33355]

  Mr. Wills
  The UK is committed to working for further opening up of the market in international legal services, which generate significant sums of foreign earnings. This aim will be furthered by enlargement of the EU, where the free movement and practice of lawyers is guaranteed.

  Reporting Procedures
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reporting procedures exist between the Law Commission and his office. [33340]

  Mr. Wills
  The Law Commission submits an annual report on the Law Commission's work to the Lord Chancellor who then lays it before Parliament. The Lord Chancellor's Director General of Policy Group has line management responsibilities for the Secretary of the Law Commission and reports on his or her performance annually.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reporting procedures exist between the Council on Tribunals and her office. [33290]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Council on Tribunals makes an annual report to the Lord Chancellor, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, which is laid before Parliament.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional training is made available to paralegal staff in the Community Legal Service. [33301]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission funds a number of initiatives to support additional training for both lawyers and paralegals. This includes training to cover issues in relation to the CLS Quality Mark as well as support for training in specific categories of law, such as that provided through the expansion package aimed at increasing the number of trained immigration and asylum law advisers. The Partnership Innovation Budget is also being used to support a range of training initiatives, and this was a key feature of a number of the successful bids announced last September.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many reports or submissions the Community Legal Service have produced since it was first established; and if she will list them. [33292]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  The Community Legal Service does not of itself produce reports and submissions. However, the Legal Services Commission, which has a statutory responsibility to establish, maintain and develop the Community

  1131W
  Legal Service, the Lord Chancellor's Department, and Community Legal Service Partnerships, have all produced a range of publications since the launch of the Community Legal Service in April 2000. These cover a range of subject areas, such as the Community Legal Service Quality Mark and Partnership Innovation Budget, but also extend to include individual strategic plans published by Community Legal Service Partnerships.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who(a) sits on and(b) appoints members of the Legal Services Commission; and what criteria are used to select those who sit on it. [32565]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission has a chair and 10 members, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Eight members are non-executives, who work for a number of days a year, and two are executives, senior members of the Legal Services Commission's staff. The current Chair is Peter G. Birch, CBE and the non-executive members are Anthony Edwards, Philip Ely, Juliet Herzog, Sheila Hewitt, Yvonne Mosquito, Richard Penn, Margaret Richards and Jim Shearer. The two executive members are Steve Orchard, CBE (Chief Executive) and Brian Harvey (Director of Resources and Supplier Development).

  Section 1 (5) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 requires the Lord Chancellor in appointing to have regard to the desirability of Commission members having between them experience and knowledge of: (a) the provision of services which the Commission can fund as part of the Community Legal Service or Criminal Defence Service; (b) the work of the courts; (c) consumer affairs; (d) social conditions; and (e) management. Further essential criteria set out in the information pack sent to people responding to public advertisements for the non-executive posts are: (a) ability to make a significant contribution at both strategic and policy levels; (b) potential to rise to the challenges that will be faced by the new Commission and to commit to an organisation driving through significant change; (c) sensitivity to the political and social policy issues facing the Commission and to the needs of the legal end users: (d) breadth of experience, vision and interest; (e) excellent communication skills; (f) a willingness to work with others to develop consensus, including working with sub-groups; (g) the ability to command respect and influence as an individual; (h) an understanding of the nature of working within the public sector; and (i) an understanding of the need to maintain high standards of probity, integrity and discretion.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many reports or submissions the Legal Services Commission has produced since it was first established; and if she will list them.[33293]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission produced 70 reports and consultation papers between its inception in April 2000 and 30 November 2001. Details are set out as follows in their order of publication:

  1. Merseyside Regional Report

  2. Legal Services Commission (LSC) General Civil Contracting—review of contracts draft for consultation

  1132W

  3. Guidance for Community Legal Service Partnerships Draft for Consultation

  4. South Eastern Regional Legal Services Committee (RLSC) Strategy

  5. West Midlands RLSC Strategy Report

  6. Eastern RLSC Report and Review

  7. Merseyside Regional Report

  8. Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Report

  9. Draft amendments to franchise category definitions, clinical negligence and actions against detaining authorities, help at court in family cases and family franchise category, June 2000

  10. Legal and Franchise Quality Standard: Solicitors

  11. Legal and Franchise Quality Standard: Not for profit

  12. General Civil Contract (Not for Profit)—Contract Documentation

  13. Legal Aid Board Annual Report 1999–2000

  14. Merseyside Regional Report

  5 Assessing Means Assessment: A summary of the first phase of the means assessment research project

  16. Family Graduated Fees Consultation Paper

  17. Community Legal Service (CLS) Funding, contracting for all civil representation, Draft for consultation

  18. General Criminal Contract—Draft for Consultation July 2000

  19. An Evaluation of the Legal Services Commission's Pilot Project on Contracting Criminal Legal Advice and Assistance—Executive Summary

  20. A Report on the Evaluation of the Legal Services Commission's Pilot Project on Contracting Criminal Legal Advice and Assistance—Quality in Criminal Defence Services

  21. A report on the Evaluation of the Legal Services Commission's Pilot Project on Contracting Legal Advice and Assistance—Work Patterns and Costs under Criminal Contracting

  22. Duty Solicitor Arrangements 2001—Draft for consultation July 2000

  23. LSC Corporate Plan 2000–01 to 2003–04

  24. Tameside Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP) Strategic Plan

  25. Salford CLSP Strategic Plan

  26. North Western CLSP Update

  27. Salaried Defender Service Research Specifications

  28. Merseyside Regional Report

  29. General Criminal Contract Proposed Payment Rates and Monthly Payment Rules

  30. North Western RLSC Report and Review

  31. London RLSC Report and Review of Regional Strategy

  32. Criminal Contracting Documentation—December 2000

  33. General Civil Contracts from 1 April 2001 (Solicitors)

  34. General Civil Contracts from April 2001 (Not for Profit)

  35. Local Legal Need

  36. Report of the Findings of the LSRC Equal Opportunities Survey, 2000

  37. North Western CLSP Update

  38. Yorkshire and Humberside RLSC Report and Review

  39. LSC Manual Release 3—(Update 1 of 2001) Consultation Exercise

  40. Means Assessment: Options for Change

  41. A proposed Quality Mark Standard for Websites

  42. Proposed amendments to the Funding Code and decision-making guidance on family mediation

  43. Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme Pilot—Proposals

  44. LSC Legal Advice and Assistance at Police Stations Register Arrangements 2001

  1133W

  45. South Western RLSC Report and Review

  46. East Midlands RLSC Report and Review

  47. Duty Solicitor Manual 2001

  48. Transaction Criteria—Ancillary relief and Children Act booklets

  49. LSC Corporate Plan 2001–02 to 2003–04

  50. West Midlands Community Legal Issue Report

  51. Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme Pilot—Proposals: Summary of Responses and Conclusions

  52. Warwickshire CLS Report

  53. London RLSC Annual Report 1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  54. Eastern RLSC Annual Report

  55. Mediation Quality Mark Standard

  56. Family Advice and Information Networks Project

  57. CLS Consultation on range of proposed amendments for the Commission's documentation

  58. CLS—changes to the financial conditions for funding by the Commission

  59. Merseyside Regional Report

  60. Quality Mark for the Bar

  61. Step by Step Guide to the Quality Mark

  62. Criminal Bills Assessment Manual—draft for consultation

  63. Police and Criminal Evidence Act Guidance on Costs Assessment Manual—draft for consultation

  64. Client Feedback Questionnaire

  65. Casework for Students

  66. Cost under the General Civil Contract

  67. Derby Strategic Plan

  68. Northampton Strategic Plan

  69. Derbyshire Strategic Plan

  70. Stockton-on-Tees Strategic Plan.

  Statutory Publications Office
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many publications the Statutory Publications Office has in storage; and if he will list the buildings where they are stored. [33295]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Statutory Publications Office does not hold any publications in storage. All publications held by the Statutory Publications Office are held within the Statutory Publications Office, Lord Chancellor's Department, Selborne House central London. These publications include Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments that are used for the purpose of updating the Statute Law Database.

  Judges
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints he has received since taking office concerning the conduct of individual judges. [33353]

  Mr. Wills
  The principle of judicial independence, which is central to our constitutional arrangements, means that it is not open to the Lord Chancellor or his Department to consider complaints about judicial decision. However, as Head of the Judiciary the Lord Chancellor does consider complaints about the personal conduct of individual judges and other judicial office holders. The names of the complainant and the judge are confidential. However, in the period between August 1998 1134W
  (when new internal arrangements for handling such complaints came into force) and December 2001, the Lord Chancellor received a total of 6,679 complaints about members of the judiciary. The majority of these related to judicial decisions. Of the remainder, 1,227 related to personal conduct and were taken forward for investigation by seeking the complainant's consent for the complaint to be copied to the judge. In 1,034 cases consent was received and the Lord Chancellor then approached the judge concerned for his or her response to the allegations and relayed these to the complainant. On 23 occasions he saw fit to take further action, either by writing to the judge or by arranging for him or her to be seen by officials. Comparable figures for the period before August 1998 are unavailable.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals she has to reduce the retirement age of judges. [33748]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are currently no proposals to reduce the retirement age for judges.

  Family Court Casework
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many family court cases have been heard in(a) magistrates courts and(b) county courts in each of the last five years. [32998]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures relating to the total number of family court cases for the five year period 1996 to 2000 are provided in the table. Figures for 2001 are currently being compiled. The figures represent the numbers of orders made under the Children Act 1989, the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Family Law Act 1996 (Part IV). In addition the county court figures include the number of petitions for divorce filed.

  Family court cases

  Magistrates courts1

  County courts

  1996

  57,904

  298,409

  1997

  56,233

  278,605

  1998

  70,984

  312,086

  1999

  56,112

  290,506

  2000

  87,977

  305,107

  1 Estimated figures—contain imputed data

  Official Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when a Minister from his Department last visited(a) the Isle of Man and (b) the Channel Islands on an official basis. [32405]

  Mr. Wills
  The dates of the last official visits by a Lord Chancellor's Department Minister were(a) the Isle of Man on 27 June 2001, (b) Guernsey on 20 September 2001, Alderney and Sark on 27 September 2001 and Jersey on 19 November 2001.

  Auld Report
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his policy is on the Auld proposal for district judges to sit with panels of JPs. [33723]
  1135W
  Mr. Wills
  The Government have taken no decisions on the report of Sir Robin Auld's Review. The period for comment closed on 31 January. The Government are now considering the recommendations in detail, taking account of the comments received. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Promotional Video
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much her Department has spent on(a) producing and (b) distributing the video to persuade people to become judges; and if she will list the people and organisations to whom it has been distributed. [33744]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  On 1 February the Lord Chancellor released 'All Rise', a video showing the part-time judicial selection process from application through to appointment. It is aimed at encouraging the widest possible spectrum of qualified lawyers to apply for part-time judicial office across the range of offices in the courts and tribunals.

  Copies of the video have been sent to local and regional law societies, barristers' chambers, lawyers' representative organisations, the media and individuals with an interest. Over 600 copies of the video have been distributed so far.

  Production costs, including copying costs, to 1 February are expected to total £38,375.50.

  Distribution costs, including the cost of postage and envelopes, to 1 February are expected to total approximately £445.00.

  Leggatt Report
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the Government's response to the Leggatt report on tribunal justice. [31442]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are currently considering their response to the Leggatt review and will make a statement at an appropriate time later in the year.

  The Government's response will take into account the public consultation exercise completed in December 2001, which generated over 350 responses.

TREASURY

  Income Tax Yield
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the(a) annual income tax yield in each year from 1975–76 to 2001–02 and (b) annual real increase in the income tax yield in each year from 1975–76 to 2001–02. [30559]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Income tax receipts for every year after 1977–78 are published in Inland Revenue Statistics 1.2. This is available on the internet at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/g_t02_1.htm.
  1136W
  Income tax statistics for 1975–76 to 1977–78 are follows:

  £ million

  Income tax receipts

  1975–76

  15,041

  1976–77

  17,014

  1977–78

  17,420

  The Treasury publishes GDP deflators on the internet at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Economic_Data_and_Tools/GDP_Deflators/data_gdp_inde x.cfm.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to extend the child care tax credit to parents in part-time work. [33013]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Child care tax credit is already available to parents who work part time. It can be claimed by lone parents who work at least 16 hours a week and by couples where both of them work at least 16 hours a week.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of his estimate in paragraph 11 of his summary of responses to the New Tax Credit Consultation (November 2001) of childless people in households with someone in work with household income below 60 per cent. of the median, between(a) childless couples, (b) single people over 25 years of age working 30 hours per week or more and (c) other single people. [32611]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: There are around 1 million single people or people in childless couples living in households with incomes below 60 per cent. of the median (after housing costs) who are working 16 hours or more a week. Around half of these are over 25 years of age and working 30 hours or more a week.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis for his calculation on replacement rates for childless couples, reported in paragraph 9 of his summary of responses to the New Tax Credit Consultation (November 2001); and if he will provide separate estimates for(a) renters and (b) homebuyers with mortgages. [32612]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The replacement rates referred to are based on a couple with someone working 35 hours a week at £5 an hour. Using this assumption, a couple without children paying rent is around £20 a week better off in full-time work than on benefit. A couple without children with a mortgage is around £55 a week better off in work than on benefit, (assuming they are not receiving any income support to cover mortgage interest). These gains to work correspond to replacement ratios before housing costs of 88 per cent. for the couple paying rent and 63 per cent. for the couple with a mortgage.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit have been(a) investigated, (b) dealt with by way of penalty or

  1137W
  caution,(c) made the subject of a prosecution and (d) made the subject of a prosecution or conviction in each year since the WFTC and DPTC commenced. [25102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table gives the information requested on applications for WFTC and DPTC since the start of these tax credits in October 1999.

  Period

  WFTC

  DPTC

  (a) Number of applications investigated

  October 1999 to March 2000

  3,893

  110

  April 2000 to March 2001

  28,930

  644

  April 2001 to December 2001

  14,361

  657

  Total

  47,184

  1,411

  (b) Number dealt with by Penalty

  October 1999 to September 2000

  106

  1

  October 2000 to September 2001

  401

  8

  October 2001 to December 2001

  128

  1

  Total

  6335

  10

  (c) and (d) Number of prosecutions

  October 1999 to March 2000

  0

  0

  April 2000 to March 2001

  12

  0

  April 2001 to December 2001

  16

  0

  Total

  28

  0

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has given to the Inland Revenue in respect of their compliance work on tax credits. [25101]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue approaches non-compliance relating to tax credits very seriously. It has issued extensive guidance to staff carrying out tax credit compliance work on individual applications and on employers who pay tax credits through the payroll.

  The principal guidance on tax credit compliance for Inland Revenue officers is the Applicant Compliance Guide. This Guide has been published and the text is available to the public at all Inland Revenue inquiry centres. Guidance on tax credit aspects of employer compliance is being consolidated in an updated Employer Compliance Handbook. This will be published on completion. Specialist compliance sections within the Tax Credit Office and at Special Compliance Office operate under internal guidance not available to the public.

  Inland Revenue officers carry out tax credit applicant compliance and employer compliance work in accordance with the relevant Codes of Practice. A Code of Practice is issued at the opening of an inquiry, explaining why the Inland Revenue inquires into some cases and what happens during an inquiry. It also sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the customer and the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals have been made to the High Court and the Court of Session under the provisions of(a) subparagraph (5) of paragraph 3 and (b) subparagraph (4) of paragraph 4 of the Tax Credits Act 1999 in each year since the commencement of the Act. [25983]
  1138W
  Dawn Primarolo
  From the information available, to date there have been no appeals to the High Court and the Court of Session under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Tax Credits Act 1999 following Inland Revenue penalty proceedings.

  International Aid
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to press other Governments to(a) increase their total international aid budget and (b) secure the abolition of education charges in the developing world by 2005. [33516]

  Mr. Boateng
  In his speech in New York in November the Chancellor called on all rich nations to commit further substantial increases to development assistance.

  The Government are committed to the principle that primary education should be made free. No child should be denied access to a basic education because the costs, either direct or indirect, cannot be met by the household. School fees are an example of a direct cost, but there may be indirect charges for books, uniforms and exams, which can make education unaffordable to many.

  The equitable financing of education is a key issue for achieving our goal of Universal Primary Education by 2015. In their dialogue with partner governments, the international community, and civil society on poverty reduction and education sector programmes, the Government will continue to argue for the reduction of financial barriers that exclude large numbers of the poorest children.

  Economic Models
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use is being made by his Department of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research's global economic model; and if he will make a statement. [33612]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The Treasury is in contact with outside organisations on a wide range of issues.

  PFI Deals
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's latest estimate is for the financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04 of the(a) capital spending by the private sector resulting from private finance initiative deals signed in those years, (b) likely value of capital spending by the private sector resulting from private finance initiative deals reaching preferred bidder stage in those years and (c) estimated value of payments made by the Government under private finance initiative contracts to private sector providers. [34925]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The current position is as follows:

  Table A: Departmental estimate of capital spending by the private sector resulting from deals signed in the following years

  £ million

  Department

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Defence

  225

  200

  100

  FCO and Overseas Development

  7

  9

  8

  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  2

  16

  3

  Trade and Industry

  38

  31

  19

  Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  865

  1,015

  1,011

  1139W

  Table A: Departmental estimate of capital spending by the private sector resulting from deals signed in the following years

  £ million

  Department

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Education and Skills1,2

  28

  9

  0

  Home Office

  34

  0

  0

  Legal Departments

  17

  13

  15

  Culture, Media and Sport

  0

  0

  0

  Health

  536

  309

  120

  GCHQ

  159

  42

  7

  Work and Pensions

  18

  67

  14

  Scotland

  364

  93

  19

  Wales

  47

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland

  31

  16

  10

  Chancellor's Departments

  83

  15

  4

  Cabinet Office

  0

  0

  0

  Local Authorities3

  1,052

  1,580

  1,800

  Total

  3,506

  3,415

  3,130

  1 Excludes private finance activity in education institutions classified to the private sector. Includes projects in the voluntary aided schools sector only.

  2 PFI activity in local authority schools is included in the local authorities line.

  3 Figures represent estimated spend on projects supported by central Government through Revenue Support Grant.

  Table B: Estimated aggregated capital value of projects at preferred bidder stage

  £ million

  Department

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Defence

  150

  270

  260

  FCO and Overseas Development

  0

  0

  0

  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  0

  0

  0

  Trade and Industry

  0

  0

  0

  Transport, Local Government and the Regions1

  10

  21

  21

  Education and Skills2

  0

  0

  0

  Home Office

  80

  80

  40

  Legal Departments

  5

  47

  8

  Culture, Media and Sport

  0

  0

  0

  Health

  0

  0

  0

  GCHQ

  0

  0

  0

  Work and Pensions

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  164

  25

  0

  Wales

  23

  76

  53

  Northern Ireland

  27

  54

  27

  Chancellor's Departments

  0

  0

  0

  Cabinet Office

  2

  4

  4

  Local Authorities3

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  461

  577

  413

  1 In addition, substantial private investment is levered in through housing, urban regeneration and other programmes.

  2 Excludes PPP/PFI activity in the further and higher education (FHE) sectors, which are classified to the private sector. Includes projects in the voluntary aided schools sector only.

  3PFI activity in local authority schools is included in the local authorities line.

  Change in total income between

  £ billion

  Group of taxpayers

  1997–98 and 1998–99

  1998–99 and 1999–2000

  1999–2000 and 2000–01

  2000–01 and 2000–02

  Top 1 per cent.

  8.4

  4.2

  6.2

  2.0

  Top 5 per cent.

  15.6

  8.0

  10.0

  4.4

  Top 10 per cent.

  21.8

  11.1

  12.5

  6.1

  Bottom 75 per cent.

  29.5

  13.2

  8.2

  10.9

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  14.1

  7.0

  3.0

  6.4

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  1.7

  0.4

  0.2

  0.9

  All taxpayers

  64.3

  29.9

  25.6

  20.7

  1140W

  Estimated Payments under PFI contracts (signed deals)

  £ million

  2000–01

  2,809

  2001–02

  3,981

  2002–03

  4,548

  2003–04

  4,875

  2004–05

  4,899

  2005–06

  4,926

  2006–07

  4,939

  2007–08

  5,014

  2008–09

  4,845

  2009–10

  4,769

  2010–11

  4,569

  2011–12

  4,426

  2012–13

  4,179

  2013–14

  4,116

  2014–15

  3,949

  2015–16

  3,961

  2016–17

  3,956

  2017–18

  3,894

  2018–19

  3,340

  2019–20

  3,346

  2020–21

  3,461

  2021–22

  3,066

  2022–23

  3,062

  2023–24

  3,033

  2024–25

  3,064

  2025–26

  2,681

  Note:

  Table C shows a forecast of the estimated payments for services flowing from new private investment over the next 25 years. Payments may be lower than estimated because of deductions from the service payments, caused either by the supplier's failure to make the service available or by a failure to meet the required performance standards. In addition, variances may occur because of changes in the service requirements agreed during the course of the contract. Payments may also vary as a result of the early termination of a contract triggering contractual arrangements for compensation on termination.

  Income Tax Liability
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in income tax liability for each year since 1997 of the(a) top one per cent., (b)top five per cent., (c)top 10 per cent., (d)bottom 75 per cent., (e) bottom 50 per cent., and (f) bottom 10 per cent., of taxpayers. [26278]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The changes in total income, total income tax liability, and total tax as a percentage of total income, by the groups requested for each year since 1997–98, are shown in the table.
  1141W

  Change in total income between

  £ billion

  Group of taxpayers

  1997–98 and 1998–99

  1998–99 and 1999–2000

  1999–2000 and 2000–01

  2000–01 and 2000–02

  Top 1 per cent.

  2.8

  1.3

  2.3

  0.6

  Top 5 per cent.

  4.7

  2.1

  3.3

  1.3

  Top 10 per cent.

  5.6

  2.8

  3.5

  1.7

  Bottom 75 per cent.

  1.6

  0.5

  0.7

  -0.3

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  0.7

  -0.2

  0.2

  -0.2

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  0.0

  -0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  All taxpayers

  8.5

  4.0

  4.8

  1.2

  Income tax liability as percentage of total income

  Percentage

  Group of taxpayers

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Top 1 per cent.

  35

  35

  34

  35

  34

  Top 5 per cent.

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Top 10 percent.

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Bottom 75 per cent.

  13

  12

  11

  11

  11

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  9

  9

  8

  8

  8

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  All taxpayers

  18

  18

  17

  18

  17

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the pre-Budget report 2001.

  Census Forms
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales concerning their role in agreeing the content of future census forms in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [33522]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Simon Thomas, dated 7 February 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question about discussions with the National Assembly for Wales concerning their role in agreeing the content of future census forms in Wales. (33522)
  Discussions are currently taking place between officials from the Office for National Statistics and the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) with a view to ensuring that the NAW has a more formal role in the planning, and content of, future Censuses in Wales. I will make a statement when an agreement has been reached.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many manufacturing jobs in central London have been lost since 1 April 2001. [33701]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark field, dated 7 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about how many manufacturing jobs in central London have been lost since lst April 2001. (33701)
  1142W
  Data for employee jobs in Central London are only collected by the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI). ABI data are available on Nomis, which is accessible through the House of Commons Library. The most recent data available related to December 2000 and were released in December 2001. Data for December 2001 will be published in December 2002.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the longest period of time elapsed is between receiving(a) the administration fee and providing the information requested and (b) a request for information and providing the information requested, under the Data Protection Act 1998. [33457]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Longest period of time between providing information requested and receiving:

  Department

  Administration fee

  Request for information

  HM Treasury

  91

  110

  Customs and Excise

  n/a

  172

  Inland Revenue

  n/a

  55

  Customs and Excise

  (a) The Department does not charge a fee for processing subject access requests.

  (b) The longest period elapsing between receiving a request and completing all action relating to its is 172 calendar days.

  Inland Revenue

  (a) The Inland Revenue does not charge an administration fee for responding to requests under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  (b)For completed requests, the longest period of time elapsed between receiving a request for information and providing the information requested under the Data Protection Act 1998 is 55 days. For outstanding requests, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today in respect of his question 33435.

  1143W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many requests the Department has received under the Data Protection Act 1988 for(a) electronically held information and (b) paper documentation. [33585]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  How many data protection requests have been received for:

  Electronically held information

  Paper document

  HM Treasury

  n/a

  n/a

  Customs and Excise

  19

  n/a

  Inland Revenue

  11,988

  421

  HM Treasury
  The Treasury has generally included paper records in its searches wherever possible, and therefore makes no distinction in its records.

  Customs and Excise
  The requests that the Department receives do not normally differentiate between the ways in which data are held.

  Inland Revenue

  Number

  Electronically held information

  11,988

  Paper documentation

  421

  Total

  12,409

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 have been completed(a) within 40, (b) between 40 and 60 and (c) over 60 days after receiving the original letter; and how many are still outstanding. [33435]

  HM Treasury1

  Customs and Excise2

  Inland Revenue3

  Percentage of requests completed within 40 days of receipt of £10 fee

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  Percentage of requests completed between 40 and 60 days of receipt of £10 fee

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Percentage of requests completed over 60 days of receipt of £10 fee

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 The percentage reflects the relatively small number of cases involved and the relative difficulty of responding to them.

  2 The Department does not charge a fee for processing subject access requests.

  3.The Inland Revenue does not charge an administration fee for responding to requests under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what administration fees are charged by the Department for information requests made under the Data Protection Act 1998. [33464]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  HM Treasury
  The Department charges the standard £10 administration fee on all subject access requests except those made by current Treasury staff.

  Customs and Excise
  The Department does not charge a fee for processing subject access requests.

  Inland Revenue
  The Inland Revenue does not charge an administration fee for responding to requests under the Data Protection Act 1998.
  1144W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  HM Treasury

  Customs and Excise

  Inland Revenue

  Total number of requests

  32

  76

  12,409

  Completed within 40 days

  17

  25

  12,356

  Completed between 40 and 60 days

  6

  16

  10

  Completed over 60 days

  3

  22

  2

  Still outstanding

  6

  13

  41

  HM Treasury
  The outstanding requests relate to either security vetting issues which have only recently been solved, or to 'all records' requests which have necessitated lengthy paper as well as electronic searches.

  Customs and Excise
  These figures relate to a period when HM Customs and Excise was undergoing fundamental restructuring and was introducing, as a consequence, revised procedures for dealing with subject access requests. The new procedures, coupled with further measures to increase staff awareness, should have a beneficial effect on future response times.

  Inland Revenue
  Of the 41 outstanding subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998, 39 requests are within the 40 day time limit set out in the Act. In two cases, clearances are awaited from the Inland Revenue's medical advisers for the release of sealed medical records covered by doctor/patient confidentiality. All other records were released to the individuals within 40 days.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed(a) within 40 days of receipt of the £10 fee, (b) between 40 and 60 days of and (c) over 60 days after receiving the administration fee. [33471]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The answer is as follows:

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the period of time elapsed is for the oldest outstanding request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998, since receipt of the(a)original request and (b)administration fee. [33448]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Days

  Longest outstanding request on receipt of:

  Original letter

  £10 fee

  HM Treasury

  364

  182

  Customs and Excise1

  131

  n/a

  Inland Revenue2

  90

  n/a

  1The Department does not charge an administration fee for processing subject access requests

  2The Inland Revenue does not charge an administration fee for responding to requests under the Data Protection Act 1998

  1145W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses the Department has completed to requests for information made under the Data Protection Act 1998 for(a)electronically held information and (b) paper documentation. [33578]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Responses completed for:

  Department

  Electronic information only

  Paper information only

  HM Treasury

  n/a

  n/a

  Customs and Excise

  19

  n/a

  Inland Revenue

  11,988

  380

  HM Treasury
  The Treasury has generally included paper records in its searches wherever possible.

  Customs and Excise
  The Department does not differentiate between electronic and manual data for responses supplied since 24 October 2001, since to do so would require disproportionate effort. Responses completed prior to 24 October 2001 related only to data held electronically; 19 were completed up to that time.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed(a) within 40 days of receipt of, (b) between40 and 60 days of receiving and (c)over 60 days after receiving the £10 administration fee. [33566]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  HM Treasury

  Customs and Excise

  Inland Revenue

  Total number of requests

  11

  n/a

  n/a

  Completed within 40 days

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  Completed between 40 and 60 days

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  Completed over 60 days

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  Still outstanding

  5

  n/a

  n/a

  HM Treasury
  The administration fee is not charged to current Treasury staff inquiring on their own records.

  Customs and Excise
  The Department does not charge a fee for processing subject access requests.

  Inland Revenue
  The Inland Revenue does not charge an administration fee for responding to requests under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the policy of the Department is for ensuring responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 are completed within 40 days; and what their procedure is to achieve this; [33478]

  (2)what the Department's procedure is for responding to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [33485]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows.
  1146W
  HM Treasury
  The Department's policy is to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998, and wherever possible to respond with the information requested well within the 40-day time limit. Under the Data Protection Act 1984, when virtually no requests were received, annual test-requests were processed to make sure that the system was compliant. Since the 1998 Act came into force, there have been a few occasions where open-ended demands for information have exceeded the normal channel's ability to respond promptly. The Department is currently resourcing a team to ensure timely responses to all requests for the Department's information.

  Customs and Excise
  The Department's policy is to comply with the requirements of the Act. Following its recent restructuring it has been necessary to introduce revised procedures for dealing with subject access requests. The new procedures, coupled with further planned measures to increase staff awareness, should have a beneficial effect on future response times. The Department has also increased the staffing of the central unit whose role is to co-ordinate responses to subject access requests. This unit acts as a focal point for incoming requests, initiates the necessary searches, collates the information received and issues a single response to the applicant.

  Inland Revenue
  The Inland Revenue is very conscious of its obligation to meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Department aims to respond to requests for information under the Act well within the 40-day time limit. The Department has in place a small central unit whose role is to co-ordinate, manage and oversee the response to all requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998. supported by an extensive structure of data protection officers across the Department, the unit collates the relevant electronic and paper records to produce a single response to the data subject on behalf of the Inland Revenue. Staff are provided with detailed guidance, and where necessary, training to ensure that the Inland Revenue fully complies with its legal obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the average cost of processing each information request under the Data Protection Act 1998. [33437]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  HM Treasury
  The Department does not maintain figures on this, and to supply them would involve disproportionate cost. The cost required to fulfil subject access requests may vary greatly from case to case, depending on the volume and ownership of records to be searched. The Department is planning to centralise and develop its facilities in order to improve the efficiency of these searches, and reduce the time taken.

  Customs and Excise
  The Department does not record the information required to produce these figures because to do so would involve disproportionate cost, given the relatively small number of subject access requests received.

  Inland Revenue
  The average cost to the Inland Revenue of processing each information request under the Data Protection Act 1998 could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Fire Safety
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospital beds are in wards which do not comply with fire safety statutory requirements. [12716]
  1147W
  Ms Blears
  The annual returns received from national health service trusts stating their position in relation to Firecode compliance are not submitted in a form to allow the number of hospital beds to be identified in wards which do not comply with fire safety statutory requirements.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants is considering the possible effects on(a)animal health and(b)human health of the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether in petrol; and if he will make a statement. [13226]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) advises the Chief Medical Officer on the possible effects of air pollutants on human health. No advice is provided on animal health.

  COMEAP has considered the possible effects on human health that might occur as a result of exposure to concentrations of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) that may be produced as a result of the addition of MTBE to petrol as an octane enhancer. The concentrations likely to be produced are low and no significant effects on public health are expected. The COMEAP statement on this topic has been placed in the Library.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Social Exclusion Unit's report on teenage pregnancy. [15152]

  Yvette Cooper
  All of the 30 action points set out in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on Teenage Pregnancy are being implemented and over a half have been completed.

  Early indications are that the implementation of the strategy is yielding positive results towards the two main goals of halving the rate of under-18 conceptions by 2010 and increasing the participation of teenage parents in education, training and employment. The under-18 conception rate has been on a downward trend for the last eight quarters for which data are available, and fell by 4 per cent, during the first year of implementation. The proportion of teenage mothers aged 16 to 19-years in education or work increased from 16 per cent, in 1997 to 31 percent, in 2000.

  Recombinant Factor 8
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of haemophiliacs(a)over 16 years and (b) in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland receive recombinant Factor 8. [16849]

  Yvette Cooper
  The latest information from the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation shows that in England patients aged 20 or younger (approximately 43 per cent, of all patients) are eligible to receive recombinant clotting factors. These patients may not currently be receiving recombinant clotting factors due to the recent world wide shortage but supplies are returning to normal and they will be put back onto 1148W
  recombinant clotting factors as soon as possible. Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Administrations.

  We are giving careful consideration to the case for providing recombinant clotting factors for all haemophilia patients in England.

  Human BSE
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Government have recently commissioned(a) on the risks of contracting human BSE from surgical instruments and (b) on how the NHS should deal with patients exposed to such risk through medical treatment; and when the results will be published. [18909]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department published a report entitled "Risk assessment for the transmission of vCJD via surgical instruments" on 16 March. This is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/cjd/riskassessmentsi.htm.

  On 10 October 2001 the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Incidents Panel published for consultation a framework document setting out proposals on the management of incidents involving possible exposure to CJD via surgery or donated blood, organs or tissues. The document is available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/cjd/consultation.

  Since 1998 the Department has allocated nearly £4 million to research on risk and decontamination of surgical instruments, and hopes to commission further contracts worth over £2 million in 2002. This work is carried out in major Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy research centres such as the Medical Research Council's prion unit in London and the National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Diseases surveillance unit in Edinburgh. Scientists at the Universities of Cambridge, London and Southampton are also involved, as well as those at Government research centres such as the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the Institute for Animal Health.

  A list of Government funded research on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies is published on the Medical Research Council's website at http:/www.mrc.ac.uk/ tse_tb2c.htm.

  Heart Disease
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the Chief Medical Officer about vulnerability to heart disease from(a)high cholesterol, (b) cholesterol levels normally deemed safe but which are sensitive at this lower level for particular individuals and ethnic groups, (c) insulin-resistant metabolic syndrome and (d) non-cholesterol related causes; whether there are targeted remedies other than quitting smoking and excessive alcohol intake and improving diet and exercise; and if he will make a statement. [20003]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no immediate plans to issue a specific report about the links between cholesterol levels and coronary heart disease. There is a requirement within the National Service Framework (NSF) for Coronary Heart Disease that all general practitioners and primary health care teams should identify all people with
  1149W
  established cardiovascular disease, and those who are at significant risk of cardiovascular disease but who have not yet developed symptoms. They should offer them appropriate advice and treatment to reduce their risks. This includes specific dietary advice to lower serum cholesterol concentrations.

  The NSF also sets out the policy for the prescribing of statins. The first priority is to ensure that people with established CHD are treated with statins to lower their cholesterol level. The next step is the treatment of those without diagnosed CHD but whose risk of a cardiac event is greater than 30 per cent, over 10 years.

  Insulin-resistant metabolic syndrome is an underlying condition in many people with Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease. Prevention of Type 2 diabetes, which is achievable mainly by lifestyle change, will be addressed in the forthcoming Diabetes National Service Framework.

  In addition to smoking, poor diet, and physical inactivity, other modifiable risk factors for CHD include obesity and hypertension. The Department is taking action to address these risk factors through the NHS Plan, Cancer Plan and NSFs for Coronary Heart Disease, Older People and the forthcoming one on Diabetes.

  Polysaccharide Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department(a) has commissioned and (b) plans to commission in respect of polysaccharide vaccine; when it was commissioned; when it will report; which (i) persons and (ii) organisations are undertaking the research; and what the (A) remit and (B) aims of the research are. [21393]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Department has commissioned the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) to undertake studies on the safety and immunogenicity of pneumococcal conjugate polysaccharide vaccines in infants and young children. The studies are under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Miller, Head of Immunisation at PHLS. The studies were started in 2001 and results are expected in 2002 and 2003. Further studies in infants or the elderly will be considered in response to suitable applications.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of malnutrition per annum(a) to the NHS and (b) to public funds by (i) region and (ii) health authority in the last five years for which figures are available; [24036]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, columns 682–83W, on nutrition, if list (a) the specific targets and (b) the dates his Department has set under the hospital nutrition policy for the reduction of under nutrition; and if these targets take into consideration (i) age and (ii) regional differences in malnutrition. [24042]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: Figures on the number of episodes of hospital in-patients with a primary diagnosis relating to malnutrition show that the incidence of malnutrition leading to hospitalisation is rare but increases with age. Information
  1150W
  on costs is not centrally located. The total cost of malnutrition would be extremely difficult to calculate as it is often associated with another disease—either as a result of the disease or only diagnosed during the treatment for the disease.

  There are a number of measures and strategies in place to specifically manage, monitor and screen patients for under-nutrition in hospitals, residential care and the wider community. This includes the Better Hospital Food programme and the introduction of ward housekeepers in hospital, as outlined in the NHS Plan. In addition, from April 2002 all care homes will be regulated in accordance with national minimum standards, including nutrition.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what screening methods are in place and on what frequency(a) in England and (b) by health authority to monitor nutritional levels in people aged (i) 0–15, (ii) 16–59, (iii) 60–75 and (iv) 75 years what his policy is on a standard national nutritional screening policy. [24037]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: There is no standard national policy on screening for malnutrition in hospitals. It is a matter for individual trusts. However, in February 2001, we released the essence of care toolkit to be used for local clinical governance activity, and in which best practice standards include the need for nutritional screening and assessment of all patients.

  Nutritional screening is also recommended for the care of specific groups, such as those outlined in the National Service Framework for Older People. As highlighted in the response to previous inquiries to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in November 2001, a number of strategies are in place to manage, monitor and screen patients for under-nutrition in hospitals, residential care and the wider community. These were outlined previously.

  Guidance on the single assessment process for older people was issued for consultation in August 2001. The assessment will identify the health and social care needs of people over 65 years, including difficulties with diet and nutrition.

  Infection Control
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include a hospital's compliance with its infection control policy within the Commission for Health Improvement inspection programme. [24668]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: We have asked the Commission for Health Improvement to independently review and monitor the uptake of national controls assurance standards for Hospital Acquired Infection during their routine reviews of an organisation's systems and processes for monitoring and improving services.

  Medical Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were working in(a) endoscopy, (b) therapy radiography, (c) breast screening, (d) cytoscreening and (e) histopathology in each of the past five years. [27248]
  1151W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of staff performing endoscopy. A range of staff (surgeons, physicians and nurses) may carry out the procedure, depending on how and where the patients present.

  The number of qualified therapy radiography staff is shown in the table.

  Information is not collected centrally on the number of staff who carry out breast screening. Figures are provided for the number of qualified diagnostic radiography staff, some of whom perform breast screening as part of their job.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff within the specified areas of work and hospital medical staff within the histopathology1 area of work as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Radiography (diagnostic)

  10,260

  10,360

  10,640

  10,840

  11,040

  Radiography (therapeutic)

  1,310

  1,410

  1,470

  1,490

  1,450

  All Healthcare Scientist Pathology staff

  23,320

  23,000

  23,170

  910

  24,240

  of which:

  Qualified

  15,900

  15,540

  15,480

  15,510

  15,580

  Unqualified

  7,420

  7,460

  ,690

  8,400

  8,660

  Medical staff working in Histopathology

  940

  940

  1,030

  1,080

  1,160

  1 In years 1996 to 1998 this specialty was titled Morbid Anatomy and Histopathology

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Healthy Workplace Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) companies, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) public sector organisations based in the Buckingham constituency have signed up to the Healthy Workplace Initiative; what information they have received, and at what cost to public funds. [27781]

  Ms Blears
  Nationally to date approximately 30,000 small and medium size enterprises have "signed up" to the Healthy Workplace Initiative. Members receive a free newsletter four times a year and join the national on-line community at www.signupweb.net, which provides access to information and support on occupational health. In addition, several regions have set up local networks of businesses to share information and experiences. The total cost of the initiative from its launch in 1999 to date has been approximately £1.4 million. Registrations to the database are not sorted by parliamentary constituency so isolating membership figures for Buckingham would involve disproportionate costs.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide additional support to community pharmacists. [28304]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1079W.
  1152W
  Cytoscreeners are medical laboratory scientific officers (MLSOs) or medical laboratory assistants (MLAs) possessing a suitable certificate in cervical cytology. It is not possible to disaggregrate them from other staff collected within the pathology grouping in the non-medical workforce census. In the table MLA cytoscreeners are included within total unqualified staff working in pathology. MLSO cytoscreeners are included within qualified staff working in pathology.

  The number of hospital medical staff within the histopathology area of work is shown in the table.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being
  made; [29025]

  (2) how many officials from his Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College; [29027]

  (3) how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four; [29023]

  (4) when the last occasion was on which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy
  decision. [29024]

  Yvette Cooper
  Departmental guidance on environmental policy appraisal (including a screening tool) is available to all staff on the department's intranet. This is linked to the Cabinet Office policy maker's checklist. In raising staff awareness of sustainable development attention has been drawn to the importance of carrying out environmental policy appraisals. This has also been drawn to the attention of agencies and arm's length bodies.

  The Department is assisting the Cabinet Office in developing an integrated appraisal tool. This is a good practice tool designed to assess the impact—including environmental impacts—of policy proposals.
  1153W
  The civil service college course on "Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy" has been advertised widely in the Department and one person has attended the course. There are a number of bodies that provide environmental training and staff will choose a course that best meets their overall needs.

  Item(s)

  Number of items

  Total loss (£)

  Losses and thefts 1997–98

  NEC Vodaphone mobile phone

  1

  25.85

  SNI Pentium CPU only

  1

  880.00

  NEC P3 mobile phone

  1

  16.30

  NOKIA 232 mobile phone package

  1

  96.88

  HP870 colour printer

  1

  0.00

  Ericsson EH237 mobile phone

  1

  0.00

  BT Jade mobile phone

  1

  0.00

  BT Response 50 ansaphone

  1

  56.22

  SNI PC-4Nd laptop

  1

  1,488.73

  SNI PCD-AT Tower PC

  1

  1,151.50

  LaserJet 4 toner cartridge

  1

  79.54

  SNI PCD-4ND laptop

  1

  1,488.73

  Laptop

  1

  1,488.73

  HPL4 printer

  1

  415.95

  BT Response ansaphone

  1

  56.22

  Motorola Mobile, spare battery, carrycase

  3

  92.26

  Intercity pager

  1

  252.63

  BT Jade mobile phone

  1

  0.00

  PSION series 3C Organiser 2MB and leather case and travel modem for 3C

  3

  624.89

  Ericsson Hotline mobile phone

  1

  22.00

  Siemens Nixdorf PCD 4NE laptop

  1

  1,488.73

  Access VBA for Office 97 reference manual

  1

  622.75

  PC Anywhere version 7.5 user guide

  1

  108,04

  Desktop calculator

  1

  15.00

  Toshiba palmtop portable PC and lead

  1

  1,880.00

  Compaq Armada 1520 laptop

  1

  1,488.73

  Toshiba Satellite-pro Laptop, disk extension and SecureNet key

  3

  1,638.73

  Compaq Armada 1520 laptop

  1

  1,488.73

  Compaq Laptop

  1

  1,488.73

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  0.00

  Compaq Armada notebook computer

  1

  0.00

  SNI 4ND 486/DX2 50 20 with 20 MB RAM and Xircon network adapter

  2

  3,000.00

  RAM 32 MB from a PC

  2

  175.00

  RAM 16 MB from a PC

  1

  93.00

  Compaq contura laptop, mobile phone and a charger unit

  3

  0.00

  Toshiba laptop

  1

  1,500.00

  BT charge card

  1

  0.00

  SNI 4NC laptop, with REMS kit, Xircom adapter, SNKey and carrying case

  4

  2,606.15

  BT Response 50 ansaphone

  1

  50.00

  MS mouse

  1

  27.00

  Compaq laptop

  1

  3,777.00

  Compaq Armada laptop

  1

  2,105.60

  Compaq Armada laptop

  1

  2,105.60

  Compaq Armada 413IT, 1120T, Ethernet card and modem

  4

  5,640.00

  Motorola mobile phone

  1

  64.63

  Compaq Armada 1120 laptop

  1

  1,521.63

  Compaq Armada 1120 and Compaq Armada 7750 laptops

  2

  3,500.00

  Microsoft mouse

  1

  27.00

  Total for 1997–98

  65

  44,648.48

  Losses and thefts 1998–99

  Iomega zip drive

  1

  90.00

  Compaq Armada portable PC

  1

  1,521.63

  Compaq Armada 1520 Laptop, PCMCIA card, SNK key, mobile phone and battery

  5

  2,395.30

  HiNote 2000 digital laptop

  1

  4,995.00

  Psion 3 organiser

  1

  350.00

  Motherboard, P233 MHZ processor 3.2 GB Harddisk, and 64 MB RAM

  4

  1,500.00

  Siemens Nixdorf laptop

  1

  1,521.63

  Siemens Nixdorf Scenic notepad, 486 PC

  1

  1,521.63

  Hard disk and two 16MB RAM from a PC

  3

  328.00

  Siemens Nixdorf 486SX laptop

  1

  0.00

  Motorola D460 mobile phone

  1

  6.00

  1154W

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26833]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]The information requested is shown in the table.
  1155W

  Item(s)

  Number of items

  Total loss (£)

  Nokia 2110 mobile phone

  1

  0.00

  Mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Mobile phone

  1

  22.71

  SNI 486 laptop

  1

  1,656.75

  SNI 4ND laptop and modem

  2

  1,829.73

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  6.00

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  0.00

  Psion 3a series personal organiser

  1

  386.58

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  NEC digital phone

  1

  156.66

  SNI PCD 4ND laptop

  1

  1,656.75

  Nokia 232 mobile phone

  1

  6.00

  SNI PCD 4ND laptop

  1

  1,656.75

  Compaq Armada 1592DT laptops

  4

  7,000.00

  Compaq Armada 1592DT laptops and TDK V34 GSM modem

  2

  1,841.23

  Siemens Nixdorf colour notebook

  1

  1,694.35

  Nokia 2110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq V70 monitor

  2

  600.00

  Multitech MULMT5600ZZDX 56k modem

  1

  100.00

  Microphone

  1

  250.00

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  1,468.75

  Compaq laptop

  1

  1,468.75

  Compaq Contura 4/25

  1

  1,468.75

  Nokia 8110 mobile phone

  1

  74.32

  Laptop computer

  1

  1,468.75

  Compaq Armada 1700 laptop

  1

  1,620.00

  Mapinfo software

  1

  1,866.00

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq Armada laptop and modem

  2

  1,641.48

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Total for 1998–99

  57

  44,204.75

  Losses and thefts 1999–2000

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  0.00

  Psion 3C organiser and Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  2

  257.05

  Toshiba 100CT Liberato palmtop, bag, battery and PCMCIA modem

  4

  2,000.00

  Panasonic AG450 camcorder and panasonic F15/8 camera

  2

  3,400.00

  Compaq Armada laptop

  1

  2,056.25

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq laptop

  1

  1,956.38

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7,05

  Compaq Armada 1700 laptop

  1

  0.00

  Ansaphone

  1

  64.63

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq 1560 laptop

  1

  1,956.38

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq laptop

  1

  1,956.38

  Compaq laptop

  1

  1,956.38

  Compaq laptop

  1

  1,948.00

  400 mhz Pentium processor

  1

  250.00

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq Armada laptop

  1

  0.00

  Toshiba Tecra 8000CDT laptop and HP 340C printer

  2

  0.00

  Compaq Armada 1700 laptop

  1

  2,113.68

  BT charge card

  1

  0.00

  Nokia 8110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Charger for a Nokia phone

  1

  24.51

  BT Response 85 digital answering machine

  1

  55.00

  Compaq Armada R4883 laptop

  1

  2,113.68

  Compaq Armada 1120 laptop

  1

  1,948.00

  Compaq Armada 1120 laptop

  1

  1,948.00

  Charger for a Nokia phone

  1

  32.09

  Charger for a Nokia phone

  1

  32.09

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  2,113.68

  Compaq Armada 1750 laptop

  1

  2,113.83

  Compaq Armada 1750 laptop

  1

  1,948.15

  Compaq Armada 1120 laptop

  1

  1,948.15

  Compaq Armada 1120 laptop

  1

  2,100.00

  16Mb DIMM

  1

  24.00

  Compaq laptop

  1

  2,193.41

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  1,880.00

  Total for 1999–2000

  44

  40,432.02

  1156W 1157W

  Item(s)

  Number of items

  Total loss (£)

  Losses and thefts 2000–01

  Maltron dual handed keyboard

  1

  411.25

  Compaq Armada 1700

  1

  1,948.15

  Nokia 5100 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq Armada 1700

  1

  2,395.13

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  180.95

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  2,702.50

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  2,395.06

  Dell Latitude Cpt500S laptops

  2

  4,460.00

  Epson 5500 projector

  1

  3,744.00

  Vodaphone phone and motorola pager

  2

  433.48

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  180.95

  Compaq Armada M700 laptop

  1

  0.00

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq Armada M700 laptops and 32 Speed Ext. CD-ROM drive

  3

  4,055.00

  Toshiba Tecra 8000CDT laptop

  1

  0.00

  Compaq Armada M700 laptop

  1

  2,200.00

  Compaq laptop with ROIS

  1

  2,378.85

  Compaq DeskPro EN 6600 P111 and 56k fax modem

  2

  844.83

  Compaq Armada M700 laptops

  2

  440.00

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  2,300.00

  Sony laptop

  1

  2,394.65

  Compaq Armada 1700 laptop

  1

  2,382.90

  Ericsson A1018s mobile phone

  1

  30.00

  PC motherboard with CPU and 64MB RAM

  2

  400.00

  Compaq Armada 1560 laptop

  1

  1,762.50

  Compaq Armada 1150 laptop

  1

  1,761.20

  Compaq laptop with ROIS

  1

  2,328.85

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone and charger

  2

  43.24

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq Armada laptop, Motorola pager, Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  3

  2,482.78

  Compaq laptop with ROIS

  1

  2,328.85

  Total for 2000–01

  47

  47,048.57

  Losses and thefts 2001–02

  Ericsson GA318 mobile phone

  1

  32.90

  Compaq E500 laptop

  1

  1,761.20

  64 Mb DIMM memory chip

  1

  61.60

  Compaq Armada M700 laptop

  1

  2,321.80

  Compaq Armada 1110 laptop

  1

  2,321.80

  Compaq Armada laptop

  1

  1,915.25

  Compaq M700 laptop

  1

  2,321.80

  Compaq Spacesaver 866 base unit, keyboard and mouse

  3

  821.33

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Palm Pilot 3

  1

  158.63

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Compaq Armada M700 laptop

  1

  2,184.33

  Compaq laptop

  1

  2,184.33

  Compaq Armada 1750 laptop

  1

  2,184.33

  Compaq Armada 1592 laptop

  1

  1,684.33

  HP colour laser jet 4550 printer

  1

  1,800.10

  Compaq Armada M700 laptop

  1

  1,995.15

  Compaq laptop

  1

  1,995.15

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  7.05

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  0.00

  Compaq Armada 500 laptop

  1

  0.00

  Compaq laptop and Psion 5MX series

  2

  2,367.05

  Compaq Armada E500 laptop

  1

  1,835.94

  Compaq Armada E500 laptop

  1

  1,835.94

  Compaq Armada 1120 laptop

  1

  1,835.94

  Pager

  1

  176.25

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  50.00

  Total to date for 2001–02

  30

  33,866.30

  1158W 1159W

  Child Protection Committees
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which area child protection committees have arrangements with each of the immigration detention and reception centres at(a) Oakington, (b) Tinsley House, (c) Yarls Wood, (d) Harmondsworth and (e) John Gavell; and if he will place in the Library copies of the protocols and working agreements. [29607]

  Jacqui Smith
  Oakington Reception Centre, and Tinsley House, Yarl's Wood and Harmondsworth Removal Centres have all made links with their local Area Child Protection Committee.

  Oakington's child protection policies and procedures have been endorsed by Cambridgeshire Area Child Protection Committee.

  Tinsley House conforms to West Sussex Area Child Protection Committee's child protection procedures and has a nominated child protection adviser to assist with child protection training, advice and liaison.

  Guidance on child protection arrangements for Yarl's Wood has been incorporated into Bedfordshire and Luton Area Child Protection Committee's Manual of Procedures, and protocols have been agreed with Group 4, who are contracted to manage the centre.

  Draft child protection procedures for Harmondsworth have been the subject of a report to Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee and a subsequent conference involving the NSPCC, UKDS—who are contracted to manage the centre, relevant local authorities and the voluntary sector.

  I understand that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, is arranging for copies of the child protection policies for these centres to be placed in the Library.

  Dungavel Removal Centre in Strathaven, South Lanarkshire is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the financial resources and initiatives sponsored by his Department in the last 12 months for Dorset which are additional to the Government SSA grants. [29891]

  Ms Blears
  The table lists the type and amount of funding made available to Dorset county council by the Department in 2000–01 and 2001–02, which is additional to the standard spending assessment.

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  AIDS Support Grant

  40

  48

  Mental Health Grant

  933

  1,044

  Training Support Programme

  300

  334

  Partnership Grant1

  1623

  —

  Prevention Grant1

  232

  —

  Promoting Independence Grant1

  —

  2,320

  Carers' Grant

  362

  507

  Children's Grant

  479

  1,190

  Improving Information Management Grant2

  —

  16,666

  Deferred Payments Grant2

  —

  194

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning Grant2

  —

  18

  Building Care Capacity Grant2

  —

  613

  Drugs and Alcohol Specific Grant2

  50

  0

  1160W

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Supplementary credit approvals:

  Mental Health

  160

  124

  AIDS/HIV

  0

  0

  1 The Partnership and Prevention Grants were amalgamated into the Promoting Independence Grant from 2001–02

  2 The grant commenced in 2001–02

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government plans to set a minimum number of hours to be spent by dentists on NHS patients. [30387]

  Ms Blears
  Dentists who are independent contractors are free to choose how much time they wish to devote to the provision of national health service dental services. There are no plans to introduce a requirement for a minimum number of hours that dentists should spend providing NHS treatment. We are committed to the provision of NHS dental care, and have invested £100 million over two years in the form of incentives and grants to modernise services and encourage increased commitment to the NHS. We will continue to work with the profession and other stakeholders on future arrangements for NHS dentistry.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what incentives the Government plans to encourage the establishment of new NHS dentists' practices in North Shropshire; [30403]

  (2) what local initiatives the Government plans to increase (a) recruitment and (b) retention of NHS dentists in North Shropshire. [30402]

  Ms Blears
  There are no immediate plans to alter existing arrangements for dentists joining the general dental service. However, discussions are underway nationally, with the profession and other stakeholders, to consider future arrangements for national health service dentistry. Workforce issues are included in those discussions.

  Historically Shropshire has had difficulty attracting sufficient dentists offering NHS treatment. In partnership with the two Staffordshire health authorities and the local NHS Workforce Confederation, the HA is commissioning an extensive review of the key employment issues facing local dental teams. This review will also identify local solutions.

  Every HA in England has in place a dentistry action plan. These identify local issues and develop solutions. In 2001–02 Shropshire HA was allocated, from national funds, £50,000 to enable general dental service practitioners to register and treat more NHS patients. More recently, an additional £50,000 has been allocated to provide support to practitioners who wish to establish, or expand, NHS practice. Since June 2001 HAs have had powers to use their own resources to address shortfalls in local availability of NHS dentistry.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered with a NHS dentist in the Hillingdon health authority in each of the last seven years. [31447]
  1161W
  Ms Blears
  The number of adult and child patients registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist in Hillingdon health authority at 30 September for each of the years 1995 to 2001 is shown in the table.

  In September 1996, the registration period for new adult and child registrations was shortened to 15 months. Previously adult registrations lasted for 24 months and child registrations expired at the end of the following calendar year. This affected registration numbers from December 1997 onwards. Data for 1995, 1996 and 1997 are not comparable with later years.

  Some patients that are not registered with a GDS dentist choose to attend occasionally.

  General dental service: Number of adult and child registrations1 Hillingdon health authority

  September each year

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  19951

  106,346

  32,957

  139,303

  19961

  104,213

  33,604

  137,817

  19971

  106,233

  35,163

  141,396

  1998

  90,010

  31,741

  121,751

  1999

  86,234

  32,186

  118,420

  2000

  85,422

  32,853

  118,275

  2001

  82,137

  32,681

  114,818

  1 Affected by the change in registration periods to 15 months.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists were accepting NHS patients in the Hillingdon health authority in each of the last seven years. [31446]

  Ms Blears
  The total number of general dental service (GDS) dentists that carry out the majority of their work in Hillingdon health authority at 30 September for each of the years 1995 to 2001 is shown in the table.

  The total number of dentists covers principals on a HA list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners. Although the number of dentists continues to rise, their level of commitment to the GDS varies, mainly due to an increase in private working.

  General dental service: Total number of dentists1 providing national health service treatment, 1995 to 2001—Hillingdon health authority2

  September each year

  Total dentists

  1995

  90

  1996

  89

  1997

  91

  1998

  95

  1999

  98

  2000

  107

  2001

  104

  1 Data cover principal dentists on a health authority list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2 Dentists who do the majority of their work in Hillingdon HA. Excludes dentists in the Hillingdon HA area who do most of their work in other HAs.

  Performance Improvement Payments
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was distributed to the south-east region in performance improvement payments in 2001–02; and which trusts in the south-east region received payments. [30764]
  1162W
  Ms Blears
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information on standards of patient care the NHS requires from private sector hospitals carrying out operations on behalf of the NHS. [30855]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are two important safeguards in place.

  First, from 1 April 2002 the National Care Standards Commission will take over from health authorities the regulation of private health care services, including private hospitals. For the first time they will be required to comply with regulations and meet national minimum standards. Also for the first time, owners, managers and others registered as being responsible for the day-to-day running of the hospital will be held responsible for the quality of care and treatment provided.

  Second, national health service commissioners are responsible for ensuring that all services and treatment provided for patients are high quality. Patients receiving treatment in private hospitals paid for by the NHS remain NHS patients. Therefore, when commissioning treatment from the independent sector, NHS commissioners must be satisfied that the treatment will be of a high standard, for example, by paper evidence of performance and visits. Quality requirements can also be set out in contracts between the NHS and the independent sector.

  Independent Complaints Reviews
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist with respect to tape recording the proceedings of independent complaints reviews; and if he will make a statement. [31069]

  Ms Blears
  It is for the lay chairman, in consultation with the other panel members, to decide how an independent review panel will operate. This can involve the tape recording of the panel's proceedings with the agreement of all concerned.

  Hospital Meals
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost per hospital meal is(a) before and (b) after the implementation of the Government's Better Hospital Food programme; and if he will make a statement. [31331]

  Ms Blears
  The Better Hospital Food programme, announced in the NHS Plan, is designed to improve the quality and availability of food in hospitals for all patients and is a long-term programme. An additional £38.5 million has been made available to support this programme.

  The first stage is to ensure that all sites are brought up to the required level. As the 31 December 2001 target date for implementation has only just passed, precise information will not yet be available, and will vary from site to site according to historic levels of investment, the type of system in operation and patient choice. We expect that detailed costings information will be available as the programme becomes established.
  1163W

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of chiropody services in the Hillingdon health authority. [31361]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for local statutory bodies, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust in this instance, to determine the services they provide in the light of their knowledge of local needs and priorities.

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available for use within the Ashford and St. Peters hospital NHS trust on 1 January(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [31588]

  Ms Blears
  The number of beds available for use on the 1 January for the requested years at Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals national health service trust is not centrally available.

  An average daily number of available beds in each financial year is collected and the information for the trust is given in the table. An available bed is defined as open and staffed at midnight and is ready to take a patient or has a patient occupying the bed.

  Average daily number of available beds, wards open overnight1, Ashford and St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust, 1998–99 to 2000–01

  Year

  Total number of available beds

  2000–01

  633

  1999–2000

  612

  1998–99

  612

  1 ie 24 hours

  Source:

  KH03—Bed availability and occupancy

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank each health authority in England by the percentage change in health spending per head of population between 1997–98 and 2002–03. [31820]

  Mr. Hutton
  Expenditure per head cannot be reliably compared between health authorities or between different years.

  Expenditure data for 2000–01 are the latest available, therefore the increase in expenditure per weighted head of population has been calculated as the percentage change between 1997–98 and 2000–01. These are shown in the table.

  Health Authority

  Percentage increase 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Morecambe Bay

  51.60

  Sefton

  45.04

  Dorset

  43.56

  Bromley

  39.82

  Camden and Islington

  39.34

  Croydon

  37.75

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  33.70

  Barnet

  32.69

  Tees

  32.54

  Nottingham

  31.73

  Liverpool

  31.62

  Doncaster

  31.17

  1164W

  Health Authority

  Percentage increase 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Dudley

  30.88

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  30.85

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  30.81

  Salford and Trafford

  30.47

  Wirral

  30.25

  Barnsley

  29.79

  East London and The City

  29.66

  East Kent

  29.51

  South Essex

  29.48

  Northamptonshire

  29.42

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  29.41

  Bexley and Greenwich

  29.36

  Avon

  29.24

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  29.00

  North Essex

  28.87

  Enfield and Haringey

  28.22

  Rotherham

  28.15

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  27.58

  East Surrey

  27.56

  Berkshire

  27.44

  Northumberland

  27.19

  Barking and Havering

  26.99

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  26.92

  Oxfordshire

  26.83

  Bedfordshire

  26.71

  Sunderland

  26.49

  Coventry

  26.45

  West Pennine

  26.40

  South and West Devon

  26.17

  Somerset

  26.04

  North and Mid Hampshire

  25.70

  Manchester

  25.59

  Wigan and Bolton

  25.54

  North West Lancashire

  25.53

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  25.40

  Walsall

  25.40

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  25.32

  Wolverhampton

  25.31

  East Riding and Hull

  25.29

  West Sussex

  25.23

  Isle of Wight

  25.19

  Norfolk

  25.17

  Wiltshire

  24.73

  Cambridgeshire

  24.23

  Stockport

  24.10

  North Cumbria

  24.05

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  23.97

  North Nottinghamshire

  23.97

  West Surrey

  23.86

  County Durham and Darlington

  23.60

  South Cheshire

  23.56

  Leeds

  23.18

  Suffolk

  23.12

  West Kent

  23.11

  North Yorkshire

  23.02

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  22.83

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  22.79

  Gloucestershire

  22.72

  Sandwell

  22.48

  North Staffordshire

  22.34

  Bury and Rochdale

  22.27

  Bradford

  22.08

  North Cheshire

  21.80

  North and East Devon

  21.67

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  21.66

  South Lancashire

  21.62

  Brent and Harrow

  21.60

  Shropshire

  21.59

  Birmingham

  21.56

  West Hertfordshire

  21.54

  South Staffordshire

  21.44

  Hillingdon

  20.93

  East and North Hertfordshire

  20.90

  1165W

  Health Authority

  Percentage increase 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Leicestershire

  20.80

  East Lancashire

  20.60

  Buckinghamshire

  20.56

  Sheffield

  20.52

  Worcestershire

  19.91

  South Humber

  19.32

  Lincolnshire

  19.26

  Wakefield

  18.65

  Kingston and Richmond

  18.05

  North Derbyshire

  17.94

  Southern Derbyshire

  17.67

  Warwickshire

  16.43

  Herefordshire

  13.26

  Solihull

  13.16

  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 or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; 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. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  2. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms and accounts which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent 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. This affects the results for 2000–01 in particular but the effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.

  4. Cambridgeshire and Norfolk health authorities were established on 1 April 1999 from the merger of three former health authorities. Expenditure figures for 1997–98 have been calculated from the relevant proportions of the three health authorities in the new bodies.

  Source:

  Health Authority annual accounts 1997–98

  Health Authority summarisation forms 2000–01

  Primary Care Trust summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates 2000–01

  Residential Children's Services
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when residential children's services will be registered in Herefordshire and Worcestershire under the new requirements governing residential child care. [31674]

  Jacqui Smith
  The new National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) will register residential children's services when its powers, as set out in the Care Standards Act 2000, come into force on 1 April 2002. Until that date, applications for registration will continue to be dealt with by the local council in which area the proposed residential service is situated. Applications that have not been processed by councils by the end of March 2002 will have their applications transferred to NCSC.

  Children's residential services, which are already registered with local councils, will have their current registration transferred to the NCSC on 1 April 2002.
  1166W
  Councils are currently compiling the necessary information to ensure that transfer of registration takes place on that date.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the Government's proposals stemming from(a) the White Paper on Mental Health, and (b) the policy statement on mental capacity, Making Decisions, will address the House of Lords judgment in the Bournewood case which relates to patients who lack capacity to consent; [32754]

  (2) what safeguards he plans to introduce for people who do not actively object to mental health treatment in hospital but lack the capacity to consent to it. [32750]

  Jacqui Smith
  The ruling of the House of Lords in the Bournewood case upheld the lawfulness of the current position whereby patients who lack capacity to consent to treatment for their mental disorder, as long as they do not show resistance, can be treated without the use of formal compulsory powers in the Mental Health Act 1983. Concerns, however, were raised about these patients.

  We are committed to reforming the 1983 Mental Health Act and a Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. As proposed in the White Paper, Reforming the Mental Health Act (December 2000), new legislation will provide the following safeguards for adult patients who have a long-term incapacity to consent and who are in a hospital or nursing home receiving treatment for a serious mental disorder:
  care and treatment overseen by a new commission for mental health;
  representation by a nominated person;
  an individual care plan, with external scrutiny by an independent member of the new expert panel;
  the right to go to the new mental health tribunal to challenge lawfulness of detention or for review of the care plan; and
  the right of access to independent specialist mental health advocacy.

  We are also committed to bringing forward legislation on mental incapacity as soon as Parliamentary time allows. The 1999 policy statement "Making Decisions" proposes a range of measures aimed at clarifying the decision-making process on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults, including the introduction of a new system of continuing powers of attorney. These proposals will be complementary to those for mental health legislation.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of progress made on a new building at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital to replace the Copthorne South building. [32586]

  Yvette Cooper
  The vacation of acute services currently on the Royal Shrewsbury hospital Copthorne South site and achieving its closure is a recognised priority both locally and regionally. The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital national health service trust and the Princess Royal hospital NHS trust have now completed the full business case and this has been submitted to the NHS west midlands regional office for approval.
  1167W

  Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing home beds and (b) residential care home beds were available per 1,000 people aged over 65 in each county of England in (i) 1997, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2001; and what the county average is. [32702]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of registered nursing care beds per 1,000 population aged 65 and over in (i) 1997, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2001 is shown by health authority in table 1; information on the number of residential care places per population aged 65 and over in (i) 1997, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2001 is shown by local authority in table 2, which have been placed in the Library.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council of the administration of the registration of care homes under the National Care Standards Commission. [32097]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authorities will have to pay in 2002–03 registration fees of £1,100 for each home they own and registration fees of £300 for each home manager. This is to bring local authority owned homes on to the same charging basis as homes owned by voluntary or private organisations. The total cost of this is for the East Riding of Yorkshire council to calculate themselves. Currently their own registration unit should be charging themselves annual fees for the local authority owned homes they are inspecting. In 2002–03 the National Care Standards Commission will not be charging any annual fees for homes that have to be registered for the first time as part of the transition process under the Care Standards Act. Annual fees for such homes will be introduced in 2003–04.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations from the Kennedy report into the Bristol Royal infirmary case the Government will adopt to improve treatment of congenital heart disease. [32538]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Services Review Group has been established to consider the recommendations from the Kennedy Report that specifically relate to health care services and treatment for children with congenital heart disease. The group has also been asked to recommend quality standards for the paediatric and congenital cardiac service and to advise on any configuration issues that arise from those standards. The review group will report in 2002.

  Road Traffic Accidents (NHS Charges)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will withdraw the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations S.I., 2002/4030. [34978]

  Ms Blears
  Following representations received from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Win-al, and the Association of British Insurers, arrangements are now being made to revoke the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations, which came into force on 28 January 2002. Amendment Regulations will be laid before the House shortly.
  1168W

  "Making It Happen"
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money was spent on promoting mental health in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; [9508]

  (2) what was the cost of the new guide "Making it Happen"; and how many copies were printed; [9509]

  Jacqui Smith
  Expenditure on centrally funded initiatives on promoting mental health is provided in the table.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1.4

  1998–99

  1.2

  1999–2000

  1.8

  2000–01

  1.3

  Information on specific spend in health authorities is not collected.

  However, following the inclusion of a mental health promotion standard in the National Service Framework for Mental Health, health and social services have been set a target to develop and agree local mental health promotion strategies by March 2002. To help support the delivery of this target the Department commissioned the development of national guidance "Making it Happen: a guide to mental health promotion", published in August 2001. This guidance cost £204,000 including publishing and distribution. 5,000 copies of "Making it Happen" were printed and distributed. The guidance is also available on the Department's website.

  Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the range of daily dosages in milligrams of methadone normally recommended for use in drug control treatments. [19712]

  Ms Blears
  The guidance from the Department on this issue, detailed in "Drug misuse and dependence—guidelines on clinical management" (1989) makes clear that the actual dose given for an individual patient must be assessed and determined by the prescribing doctor.

  The clinical guidelines recommend that depending on the individuals tolerance levels the range for the initial dose should be between 10mg and 40mg.

  If a follow-up dose is required it should not exceed 30mg. However, a supplementary dose should only be considered where there is evidence of persistent opioid withdrawal. These cases need to be assessed by an experienced medical practitioner.

  As far as the subsequent stabilisation period is concerned any increases in dosage should not exceed 10mg per week up to a final total of between 60 and 120mg.

  Cancer
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future provision of cancer services in Hertfordshire. [32301]
  1169W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The Steering Group for the Long Term Review of Mount Vernon Cancer Network and Centre has met on 30 January 2002 to consider an interim report. The Steering Group reviewed feedback that they had received since the publication of its preliminary report in September 2001, the proposed clinical model, progress on site surveys and access issues.

  The Steering Group is working towards a major decision that will ensure the best possible cancer services for the population in Hertfordshire and others that use the Mount Vernon Cancer Centre. There is a great deal to consider, including the many different viewpoints of patients and communities. The Steering Group wishes to be confident of its findings before making any final recommendations later in the year.

  Surgical Instruments
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of re-stocking with re-usable instruments for tonsillectomy following the hazard notice of October 2001. [32777]

  Yvette Cooper
  The estimated cost of re-stocking with re-usable instruments would have been no more than £1.4 million.

  This estimate is based on 150 trusts undertaking tonsillectomy operations, with eight sets of instruments per trust at an average cost per set of £1,200. However, feedback from trusts indicates that a significant percentage of them have retained their original re-usable sets. Therefore, the actual figure may be much less.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he had with surgeons on the acceptability of the disposable instruments purchased for tonsillectomy in 2001. [32782]

  Health authorities with highest expenditure per capita

  Number of patients waiting for in-patient treatment

  Name

  Expend per capita (£)

  Over six months

  Per 1,000 head of weighted population

  Over 12 months

  Per 1,000 head of weighted population

  Morecambe Bay HA

  1,346.04

  1,085

  3.44

  112

  0.36

  Camden and Islington HA

  1,067.88

  1,147

  2.28

  236

  0.47

  Sefton HA

  1,040.25

  1,811

  6.06

  385

  1.29

  Dorset HA

  1,023.69

  47

  0.07

  11

  0.02

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  1,011.24

  838

  1.66

  92

  0.18

  Bromley HA

  971.74

  1,913

  6.54

  301

  1.03

  Barnet HA

  959.87

  1,298

  3.93

  217

  0.66

  East Surrey HA

  958.66

  3,009

  7.89

  874

  2.29

  Sheffield HA

  956.59

  1,868

  3.26

  57

  0.10

  Croydon HA

  925.44

  2,145

  6.55

  625

  1.91

  Health authorities with lowest expenditure per capita

  Number of patients waiting for in-patient treatment

  Name

  Expend per capita (£)

  Over six months

  Per 1,000 head of weighted population

  Over 12 months

  Per 1,000 head of weighted population

  Stockport HA

  759.28

  1,389

  4.96

  192

  0.69

  Solihull HA

  756.17

  473

  2.44,

  17

  0.09

  Buckinghamshire HA

  755.09

  3,419

  5.60

  681

  1.12

  Hillingdon HA

  753.76

  987

  3.98

  200

  0.81

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  749.06

  1,782

  4.72

  329

  0.87

  West Pennine HA

  746.22

  1,939

  4.02

  279

  0.58

  North Derbyshire HA

  744.33

  1,649

  4.53

  35

  0.10

  1170W
  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency undertook the procurement process with the support of the British Association of Otorhinolaryngolygists (BAO), whose members were regularly consulted about the acceptability and quality of the products.

  In February 2001, all BAO members were invited to attend an inspection of the sample instruments that had been submitted. The feedback from this event was used to determine a shortlist of suppliers.

  Instruments from short listed companies were used and evaluated by surgeons selected at random before final decisions were made about which products would be supplied.

  Waiting Lists
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been waiting(a) more than six months and (b) more than 12 months for treatment in the 10 health authority areas that receive (i) the highest and (ii) the lowest weighted expenditure per head of population. [32963]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: For the reasons set out in the notes to the table, expenditure per head cannot be reliably compared between health authorities, nor necessarily be correlated with waiting times information.

  The 10 health authorities with the highest and lowest expenditure per weighted head of population in 2000–01 are shown in the table. The numbers of people waiting for more than six and 12 months for in-patient and for out-patient treatment are shown both as total numbers waiting and also as the numbers waiting per 1,000 head of weighted population.
  1171W

  Health authorities with lowest expenditure per capita

  Number of patients waiting for in-patient treatment

  Name

  Expend per capita (£)

  Over six months

  Per 1,000 head of weighted population

  Over 12 months

  Per 1,000 head of weighted population

  East Lancashire HA

  740.66

  2,405

  4.28

  91

  0.16

  County Durham And Darlington HA

  738.32

  1,852

  2.76

  23

  0.03

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  732.65

  2,638

  4.29

  395

  0.64

  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 or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; 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. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  2. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent 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 identified.

  Sources:

  Health authority summarisation forms 2000–01

  Primary care trust summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates 2000–01

  QF01/QMO8R Waiting times data quarterly returns, end March 2001

  Maternity Units
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the size of maternity units in the NHS. [32965]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The national health service provides care for women during pregnancy and childbirth in various types and sizes of maternity units. This will vary from large units in hospitals to small midwife led units. It is for local health authorities, trusts and communities to decide on the pattern of service provision taking into account the needs of local service users, evidence of effectiveness and available resources.

  Emergency Services (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the pay and conditions of control room staff in the(a) ambulance, (b) police and (c) fire services under the new combined working arrangements. [33052]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The pay and conditions of ambulance control room staff will continue to be determined in accordance with national health service pay arrangements. For staff on national contracts, negotiations on pay for 2002–03 will start shortly.

  Employment arrangements for staff working in the police and fire services are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions respectively.

  Herceptin
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement relating to the availability to patients in the west midlands of Herceptin prior to the publication of NICE guidance. [33535]
  1172W
  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales have asked the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise Herceptin for the treatment of advanced breast cancer, and to issue guidance on its use to the national health service in England and Wales. NICE expects to issue guidance on Herceptin in spring 2002.

  Data on the number of health authorities in England and Wales currently authorising the use of Herceptin are not collected. However, as with all newly licensed treatments in advance of a NICE appraisal, the Department's advice is that funding authorities should consider the clinical evidence available for a specific treatment before making any decision.

  Care Workers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated to train care workers to NVQ level 2 standard as set out in the domiciliary care standards; and if he will make a statement. [34435]

  Jacqui Smith
  Provision has been made in the personal social services standard spending assessment (PSS SSA) in 2002–03 and 2003–04 for the training of care workers to NVQ level 2 standard as set out in the draft domiciliary care standards. The PSS SSA is unhypothecated, and it is for individual councils to consider how much to spend on this training in the light of local circumstances.

  Clozophine
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time has been for schizophrenic patients who have been prescribed clozophine to receive the drug in the last six months. [34018]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  1173W

  Epsom Hospital
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many births there have been in Epsom hospital's maternity unit; and what the average number 1174W
  was in maternity units in England and Wales in the last five years. [33705]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]:Information about the average number of births in maternity units is not collected centrally.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Secondary Schools
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet established a timetable for the next secondary school curriculum and staffing survey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, in December my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards gave an undertaking in another place that the survey would be conducted shortly. Preparations for the survey are in hand and my department hopes that data collection will take place later this year.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. She will not be surprised to learn that although I have great respect for her, I am unhappy with her Answer. Is she aware that my honourable friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in another place and myself in your Lordships' House have been asking the Government about this very overdue survey since February last year? Does she accept that Ofsted has confirmed that this is the only official way of finding out not just how many teachers are in our schools, or how many vacancies there are, but how many teachers are teaching subjects for which they are not qualified? Every time we ask the question we are told that there are preparations and considerations. If the Government intend to carry out the survey, may we please have a timetable? If the Government do not intend to carry out the survey, will the Minister please say so? We shall then know that the Government refuse to use the only system that is in place for finding out the information.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I say without hesitation that the Government intend to conduct the survey. The reasons for delaying the survey are entirely bureaucratic and administrative. For example, we must ensure that the right people are in place to conduct the survey. We are now in a position to be able to do that. The purpose of the survey is to look at a sample of about 500 secondary schools. The survey will not measure teacher numbers or vacancies. Figures on such matters come from the form 618G survey of all LEAs in England which is conducted annually.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as part of the Question is about the syllabus, perhaps I can draw the
732
Minister's attention to the Nuffield report on Science and Society entitled Beyond 2000, which was presented to the Select Committee of this House on Science and Society. The report, which we commended, acknowledged that when science became a compulsory subject up to the age of 16, the syllabus, particularly at secondary school level, remained almost the same. It is now widely regarded as inappropriate for teaching scientific literacy. When the Minister receives the results of the survey, will she ensure that those results are taken serious note of? I declare an interest as president of the Association for Science Education.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work in the area of science. He knows that I am the Minister with responsibility for Science Year and I have had the privilege of discussing this matter with him, We shall take serious note of the survey. It will be an important document. I shall ensure that we deliberate on it and that we are in dialogue with the noble Lord on the issues raised.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one reason why my noble friend Lady Walmsley pressed the issue of the survey is that during the Report stage of the Education Bill in another place yesterday honourable Members were able to debate less than half of a major Bill that shortly will come to this Chamber? If the Government are to be held properly accountable for one of the major public services, does the Minister recognise that adequate information has to be made available to this House so that it can discharge the duty that the other place is no longer able to carry out?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I expect that there will be full debate and deliberation on the Education Bill when it reaches your Lordship's House. I very much look forward to that. Of course, we need to provide information. We shall attempt to do so in a way that noble Lords will find useful. This morning I took part in a discussion on ensuring that noble Lords have adequate information before we embark on our deliberations.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is quite wrong that one has to rely on this House to scrutinise Bills properly. In any changes that may be made to procedures I hope that that will be remedied. Form 6—it used to be form 7—does not include information about the number of supply teachers or the number of teachers who teach subjects for which they are not qualified. In the Minister's answer to the first supplementary question she said that the survey does not cover those issues. Who in the DfES will be able to tell the House at some stage how many supply teachers are being used at any one time and how many teachers are teaching subjects for which they do not have a qualification?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the survey will cover the latter point raised by the noble Baroness,

733
which concerns appropriate qualifications for teachers. Noble Lords have raised that as an important issue. I echo that feeling. On supply teachers, I shall come back to the noble Baroness with specific details on that. But she should have no illusion about the fact that we take this matter very seriously. As to scrutiny, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the scrutiny carried out in another place when we debate the Bill in this House. I look forward to that as well.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in the Minister's initial reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, she used that ubiquitous word "shortly". Please will she define what "shortly" means?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it means "soon".
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the survey is to take place soon, shortly or whenever. There must be a timetable for the survey. Can the Minister tell the House when it is due to be completed?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I always give noble Lords as much information as I have. I anticipate that we shall have the results in the early part of next year. By "early" I mean within the first half of next year. The survey will take a while to complete. That is not because we are being slow, but it is a survey that will require great care and attention. It is a priority and it will be carried out properly.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, while we await the survey, can the Minister tell the House how many children will be taught subjects by teachers who are not qualified to teach those subjects?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the previous survey showed that 82 per cent of staff held an overall qualification. It is worth saying that we carefully monitor the vacancy rates that we know about in teacher training and within individual schools, so we are under no illusions about some of the issues and some of the subjects where there are shortages. That is why we have brought in a raft of measures to encourage our most able graduates to enter those areas of teaching. This is not a subject to which the Government give anything other than the highest priority.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, my knowledge of the English language is limited, but a year hardly seems to mean "shortly", particularly when a major Education Bill is going through the House. The Minister should encourage her department—not the most efficient in Whitehall—to do things a little more quickly.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I always encourage the department to do things as quickly as possible. There is a difference between when the survey
734
will begin and when it will end. My comments about "shortly" or "soon" concern when the survey will begin. It is a detailed survey that is required to be undertaken by people of high calibre. Those people are in place and the survey will begin soon. I look forward to discussing the results with your Lordships.

Nuclear Weapons
3.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions they are taking to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, since the end of the Cold War, the day-to-day danger of nuclear exchange has much diminished and nuclear weapons arsenals have been greatly reduced but we are not complacent. Dangers remain, for instance, in tensions caused by regional conflicts. We are working to address those through diplomacy, international conflict prevention activity and by work to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. All of those approaches are designed to contribute towards creating the circumstances in which our ultimate goal of global nuclear disarmament can be achieved.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am glad that the Government are not complacent. I am sure that the House generally will share that view. It may also share the view that some further action to demonstrate that lack of complacency would not be unwelcome.
I recall an interview that I had with Mr Attlee in the demobilisation period in 1947. He said that the view that I expressed, which was that nuclear weapons had to be got rid of, had been shared at an even "higher level"—as he put it, pulling my leg. The higher level concerned was the supremo himself, Lord Mountbatten. It was his view that we must get rid of this damn thing quickly or the damn thing will get rid of us. We have been spared that, although it has sometimes been a close-run thing. But we must not be complacent. I suggest that the Government should be called on to demonstrate that lack of complacency more fully than they have done hitherto.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I certainly shall not in any way attempt to challenge my noble friend's extraordinary expertise which goes back over many years on this very important issue. Perhaps I may suggest that I write to him with a full list of all the measures that the Government have taken since May 1997 to further the cause of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It is a long list with well over 10 items. Perhaps if I do that, and place it in the Library of your Lordships' House, it will give my noble friend the information that he needs.
I should also like to point out to my noble friend that we are very much looking forward to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty preparatory conference which is

735
due to take place in April this year. At that conference we shall again return to some of the issues in which I know my noble friend is interested, including of course pressing very hard for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. I believe that that lies very much at the heart of taking this issue forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House rather welcome the sudden change of view by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on the matter of antiballistic missiles and his apparent recognition now that the abrogation or bypassing of the ABM treaty would actually assist in non-proliferation, assist and accelerate the task of nuclear disarmament and reducing nuclear weapons, and is of no threat to Russia whatever? That is what he said yesterday. Will the Minister endorse that welcome change of view? Will she reject strongly the views that we have heard in both your Lordships' House and another place in the past that somehow this move would lead to a new arms race and bring Russia raging into the nuclear battle again? In fact, it would do the opposite, would it not?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that I had better send the noble Lord a copy of the speech. I am sure that he has read it. I certainly have done so. It does not say quite what the press says that it says. I have never heard my right honourable friend, or indeed any member of the Government, suggest that the plans put forward by the American Administration would lead to a new arms race. I assure the noble Lord that what may have changed is the spin put on by the press of what my right honourable friend said, but his position has not changed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister say how much influence the British Government have over these bilateral conversations or negotiations between the United States and Russia about the abrogation and replacement of the ABM treaty? If the British Government do have any influence, could we bring that influence to bear on the American Government to suggest that they should accept Russian proposals that those nuclear weapons removed should be destroyed and not simply stored?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, these are essentially discussions between the United States and Russia. It is a treaty between those two parties. But naturally we are interested in ensuring that they have peaceful and useful discussions. I do think that the US posture review has taken this position forward. The START I treaty allows both sides to have in the region of 6,000 deployable warheads. The American proposals would reduce the deployable operational warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200. We await the Russian response to that. Another key part of their discussions will be the arrangements that can
736
be made between those two countries on transparency and verification. We very much encourage them to stick at those discussions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has the Prime Minister's attempt to persuade the Governments of India and Pakistan not to use nuclear weapons against each other been successful?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, happily we have not seen the use of these appalling weapons between those two countries. But recent tensions speak for themselves. Tensions between India and Pakistan make progress on a non-proliferation agenda all the more important, not just for the safety of south Asia but for the whole world. So the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right; it is enormously important that we continue to press both countries to engage as soon as possible in dialogue on nuclear confidence-building measures. It is also very important that we encourage both countries to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty. We want to see them signed up as non-nuclear weapons states. That is an enormously important aspect of what we are encouraging them to do.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend say what pressure Her Majesty's Government are bringing to bear on the Government of Iran to abandon their development of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we encourage all countries which hold weapons of mass destruction—whether chemical, biological or nuclear—to abandon them. I make no distinction here. We are of course very concerned by the rumours concerning Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons. But I come back to the point that I made to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, that one of the crucial issues in this matter is to move towards a treaty on fissile material. It is self-evident that, in order to develop nuclear weapons, countries must be able to get hold of fissile material. The control of that fissile material through a treaty which has been deadlocked is a very important issue for us to take forward in the discussions which we hope to pursue in April.

Energy Review
3.16 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the energy review by the Policy and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office will be published.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am pleased to inform your Lordships that the

737
Performance and Innovation Unit's energy review will be published shortly—next week. Copies will be made available in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that definition of "soon", which has improved on the previous definition that we received. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that there have been many leaks, some of them contradictory, about what is alleged to be contained in this report? Therefore, is that not all the more reason for it to be published as soon as possible? Secondly, as this will be a report to and not from government, what will be the procedure for considering it that will follow? How long will it take before the Government reach a decision on the important policy issues that must be taken in the energy sector?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks of leaks. I always deprecate them—particularly other people's. As the noble Lord knows—because he was good enough to make an extremely helpful submission—this is a report, as he says, to government. An issue of such importance which talks about energy provision over the next 50 years plainly needs to be reflected on. Of course I undertake to pass on to the usual channels the noble Lord's desire that it should be subject to parliamentary debate and scrutiny as soon as reasonably possible.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it has been rumoured that this review will be accompanied by a government consultation document. Will it or will a consultation document follow later? Secondly, if there is to be a consultation document—given the long-term nature of the issues that are to be discussed in the PIU report—will the Government ensure that the consultation period is long enough so that people really can express their views; and that the Government have time to take account of those views and not publish them two days after the end of consultation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly take on board the useful suggestion that there should be full consultation. However, if the consultation is lengthy, the difficulty is that at least three-quarters of your Lordships will complain that it has gone on for too long. This process with the PIU has been very full and open. Virtually every submission 400 in all—has already been published on the website. I do not believe it could be said that the Government are not genuinely interested in having all informed views; and also uninformed views.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House aware that some people are not quite sure what tasks the Policy and Innovation Unit and the other units in No. 10 Downing Street actually perform? One of the things that the PIU definitely does is to take a lot of taxis; indeed, £35,000-worth of taxis in the latest financial
738
year. Would the noble and learned Lord consider asking the Prime Minister's staff in No. 10 whether they would think of following the advice of the Government's own vehicle certification agency, which says that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to get on a bike?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is not present in the Chamber, so I cannot really answer the last point. In his previous occupation, I am sure that taxis were wholly unknown to the noble Lord.

MMR Vaccine
3.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether parents should be entitled to an alternative to MMR (measles mumps rubella) vaccination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the advice from the Government's expert committees and from many other countries around the world is that MMR is the vaccine of choice to protect children from measles, mumps and rubella. Alternative immunisation courses do not provide the same protection, and there is no evidence to show that they are even as safe as MMR.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I most certainly agree with him. However, many parents have been wrongly convinced by the media that MMR vaccines are not safe. Now that we are told that single vaccines are no longer available, can the Minister say how the Government will prevent an outbreak of these horrible diseases?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should, first, pay tribute to the noble Lord for the role that he played towards the development and the introduction of MMR when serving in my department in the 1980s. I can tell the House that the figures are quite striking. There were 85,642 notifications of measles in 1988, whereas the figure for 1999 was 2,438. I believe that those figures show that the introduction of the MMR vaccination was one of the most outstanding public health measures taken by this country for many years.
The noble Lord is absolutely right to emphasise that the key issue here is how to ensure that parents do decide to take their children to surgeries to have MMR vaccines. The Government have a health promotion programme. Many information packs have been made available to general practitioners and other health professionals. In addition, information is available on the Department of Health's website and through the NHS Direct health helpline. But, clearly, more needs to be done. I repeat: the evidence that has been most

739
carefully considered by the relevant expert committees reinforces the point that the MMR vaccine is tried and tested, and that it is the safest way to protect children. We must redouble our efforts to get that message across to the community as a whole.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that informed medical opinion across the world is satisfied that the risks of MMR inoculation are minuscule and, indeed, as many people are now advocating, that they are significantly less than those of multiple inoculations? Does he also agree that there has been some misinformed opinion in the public press suggesting that the inoculation of boys against rubella is unnecessary? Rubella is a very mild disorder, but it is very infectious. Boys so infected could easily pass the disease on to their sisters or mothers with the consequent risks of producing foetal malformations due to rubella contracted during pregnancy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. Again, I should emphasise that the figures in relation to rubella are equally striking. The notifications in 1989 were 24,570, but that figure decreased to 1,653 in the year 2000. Not only has the MMR vaccination been considered by the relevant advisory committees in this country; many of the medical and health bodies in this country have also endorsed its use. It is used widely throughout the world. I am convinced that getting the message across to the public with the support of all the organisations suggested by the noble Lord will be effective in increasing the immunisation rates, which have fallen to a lowish level. We must do everything we can to increase them.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I speak as a one-time epidemiologist. Does my noble friend agree with me that the methodology of the study that linked autism and bowel disease to the MMR vaccination was deeply flawed, depending, as it did. on 12 self-selected cases only without adequate controls?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the various reports recently reviewed in the media have either been studied carefully by the Government's advisory committees and experts, or, in the case of a report published earlier this week, will be considered. Studies show that expert researches using the most sensitive molecular tests have been unable to find the measles virus in the bowel tissues of patients with bowel disease, which is one of the issues that has been raised. Aside from this, the key fact for parents is that studies looking directly at whether MMR causes either inflammatory bowel disease or autism have found no link.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Official Opposition have repeatedly stated their full support for the MMR vaccine? However, should we not address the situation as we find it rather than as we would like it to be? As outbreaks of measles are now
740
occurring, can the Minister tell the House what is the Government's message to those parents who, for their own reasons, have chosen to refuse MMR vaccinations for their children?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must say that I find the noble Earl's comment about the Official Opposition's support for MMR to be surprising. That was not the impression that I gained from the statement made by Dr Fox yesterday. I take my hat off to the Opposition for the work that they carried out in the 1980s to introduce the MMR vaccine. As I said earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, played a very important role in that introduction, which had a dramatic effect in reducing the incidence of these diseases in this country. The emphasis here must be on raising public confidence in MMR. We are committed to that end. I believe that the statements made today by the Chief Medical Officer and other medical organisations in this country will start the process. However, we need to do more; and we shall.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware of how pleased I am to hear the House speak with one voice on this matter, unlike the exchanges yesterday in the other place? Does the noble Lord accept that some parents are confused and worried about whether the risk of having the triple vaccine is greater than the risk of not having it? Therefore, what does the noble Lord plan to do in the short term to bring the weight of the evidence to public attention, and will he draw parallels with the whooping cough outbreak in the 1980s? As for the longer term, does the Minister recognise that it is only by having transparency and openness in public health matters post-BSE, and those scandals, that he will maintain public confidence in the advice given on public health affairs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords; I very much agree with the noble Baroness. As I mentioned earlier, information is made available to parents through the Department of Health's website and NHS Direct, as well as being available in local GP surgeries. Clearly, we cannot be complacent in the matter. We must redouble our efforts. In the past two days the Government have signalled their determination to do so.
The issue regarding whooping cough is apposite. Many noble Lords will recall the concerns raised in the 1970s and 1980s about the whooping cough vaccine, which were later shown to be unfounded. However, as a result of those concerns, parents were offered a choice of vaccines with, or without, the whooping cough component. Over 50 per cent of parents at that time opted for the vaccine without the whooping cough component. Many of their children caught the disease, thousands were admitted to hospital and more than 100 died. That must be a lesson to us all in relation to the current situation. We must not repeat that experience.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is there not a responsibility not only on the Government to be open

741
and transparent but also on the media to end a culture of reporting science that has gone beyond an appropriate and legitimate challenge to orthodoxy to the point of elevating the maverick view and denigrating world-wide evidence and authoritative views? On the issue of individual choice, is it not the responsibility of government in the conext of a public health measure such as vaccination to consider not only the choice offered to individual parents who want to have a less effective measure for their children, but the effect on the children of other people who do not make the same choice and who have babies too young—the babies are, therefore, at risk—and children such as those with leukaemia who cannot be vaccinated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. The campaigns in some newspapers for a single vaccine are highly irresponsible. The policy of having a single vaccine in place of MMR is untested. Single vaccines used in place of MMR increase the risk of a child getting the disease. The doctor who proposed it, Dr Wakefield, has also said that the interval between those jabs should be at least a year. In the case of single vaccines to cover mumps, rubella and measles, that would mean six jabs over a period of six years.
Anyone who has raised children will know that if we had that situation instead of two MMR jabs, the risk of children not completing the course would be great. During that period, people will not have the protection that MMR gives. It is abundantly clear that we should support MMR and do everything we can to get that information through to parents.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the business statement and the First Reading of the Education Bill, my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the nationality, asylum and immigration White Paper.
At a convenient moment after 7 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on London Underground and the modernisation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are accustomed to having Statements delayed by unforeseen events, but it appears that the events that delay this Statement are foreseen. Can the noble Lord tell the House what those circumstances are?
Lord Carter: My Lords, discussions are going on, and a further report is required. That means that the Statement cannot be made in the House of Commons before 7 p.m.

Education Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum White Paper
3.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on nationality, immigration and asylum.
"Last October, I informed the House of the new strategic direction for this crucial area. Today, I am publishing a White Paper to be followed by legislation in this Session. Significant progress has already been made: the first induction centre was opened on 22nd January in Dover; registration cards were launched last week and are now being issued to new asylum seekers; we have launched the highly skilled migrant programme; new border security controls are in place, following my announcement of 19th September; and, as of last week, asylum seekers are no longer being held in prison.
"I can also confirm today that vouchers will be replaced by cash by the autumn, together with action against fraud and the development of a more robust, faster and efficient system.
"The White Paper takes forward our agenda by offering a holistic and comprehensive approach to nationality, managed migration and asylum. That recognises the interrelationship of each element in the system. No longer will we treat asylum seekers in isolation or fail to recognise that there must be alternative routes to entry into this country.
"Our policies must command trust, confidence and respect from the wider community. The British people demand coherence in policy and efficiency in administration.
"Our starting-point has been the development of a sense of belonging and community. Confidence in our identity and citizenship allows us to welcome those who come to the UK as refugees or legal migrants more readily.
"To give meaning and value to the acquisition of British nationality, I am confirming today that we will introduce a number of key reforms. There will be a new light-touch arrangement to ensure that those who take on nationality have the language skills and basic knowledge of our society needed to contribute fully. There will be ceremonies at which the confirmation of citizenship can be celebrated. We will modernise the oath of allegiance, to provide new wording to make clear the fundamental rights and duties of citizenship. It will be a citizenship pledge.
"The White Paper also sets out the routes by which men and women can work legitimately in this country. In today's global economy, that is crucial to our competitiveness and prosperity. My new proposals include the following: the development of

743
routes for seasonal or short-term casual working; consultation on reform to the working holidaymakers scheme to make it less restrictive; and enabling students graduating in the UK to switch into the work permit scheme.
"The White Paper sets out the end-to-end revisions to the asylum system. The new process will track and support asylum seekers from induction, through reporting and accommodation, to removal or integration.
"Work has started on the new trial accommodation centres, which will be mandatory for those designated asylum seekers who are claiming public support. The centres will offer education, healthcare and legal and interpreting services. Opportunities for volunteering and other purposeful activities will also be available, as will appropriate language support. In the case of those refused asylum, secure removal centres will enable us to protect the integrity of the system through early removal.
"Without an agreed and legitimate route for asylum seekers to enter this country, it has been inevitable that men and women desperate to seek refuge would put their lives at risk. That is why I am announcing today that we will set up the new gateway for those seeking to settle in Britain. It will be operated under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Legitimate refugees who come via the gateway will no longer have to attempt hazardous journeys across the Channel. That would be a major step in regularising legitimate entry alongside our managed economic migration programme. In addition, to secure a robust foundation on which we can build, I intend to undertake a full, comprehensive audit of existing asylum claimants. Long-standing cases will receive urgent attention.
"The 'White Paper also sets out substantial changes to the whole asylum appeals process. Far too many appeals and judicial reviews are designed to delay and frustrate removal. I am therefore announcing today that we will simplify the one-stop appeals process; set closure dates for appeal hearings to stop multiple adjournments; and make the immigration appeal tribunal a superior court of record. In addition, we will increase the capacity of the adjudication system by 50 per cent, to a total of 6,000 cases a month, during this year. We will expand the number of removal places to 4,000.
"I can also confirm that I intend to close Campsfield House. That outdated centre is no longer appropriate in the 21st century. The detention places will be transferred to the new high standard removal centres.
"My reforms will protect fundamental rights, stop abuse of the system and enable the more effective administration and processing of claims. Those working in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be able to do their job more effectively, and I expect both greater productivity and efficiency.
744
"Let us be in no doubt. We need to reduce the pull factor by clamping down on both clandestine entry and illegal working. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will ensure that we can seize the assets of criminals involved in smuggling and trafficking people. In addition, the maximum penalty for those facilitating illegal entry will be raised to 14 years.
"I can also confirm that we will legislate to tackle trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This will be a stepping stone to more wide-ranging legislation dealing with sexual exploitation. In addition, we will introduce tougher border controls and step up action, together with our European and international partners.
"A high level steering group of business and trade union leaders is being established to take forward proposals to tackle illegal working; and as I announced on Tuesday, we intend to launch a consultation on entitlement cards to be published in the spring or early summer.
"Alongside those practices we will act against the worrying practice of fraudulent marriages. We will increase the probationary period from one to two years; we will consult on a new 'non-switching' provision to prevent people applying to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage after entering through a different category; we will encourage communities with a culture of arranged marriages to look to those already resident in the United Kingdom.
"Finally, I know that the rules on family visitor visas have been a cause of great concern to Members of this House. I have an open mind on how best to improve the system, not least for those seeking urgent entry on occasions such as bereavement. The Government would therefore welcome ideas on how best to provide guarantees or bonds. That might be undertaken not simply by individuals or families, but by the provision of a community bond. I recognise that we have to get this right and I am therefore encouraging positive suggestions on how best to proceed.
"Our future social cohesion, economic prosperity and integrity, depend on how well we rise to the global challenge of mass migration, communication and flight from persecution. We have a history of trade and migration that has brought us wealth and prosperity over the centuries. Nevertheless, building trust and confidence to secure the support of the British people is essential.
"By doing this we can create a country that is open to skills and enterprise, but not to exploitation. This is a Britain with a balanced approach to nationality and immigration; a country of which we can all be proud".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating a Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place shortly after noon today. I thank the Minister also for the early

745
arrival of a copy of the White Paper and the speedy arrival of an early copy of the Statement. They were particularly helpful. My first reaction on hearing that there was to be a Statement on this subject today was to regret that I had not paid sufficient attention to the contents of newspapers over the past two or three days, owing to some concentration on the police Bill. I am grateful that the Minister's help makes my task much easier.
In this matter we should be clear that we all have the same ambition; that is, to create a situation in regard to immigration and asylum where we can all have confidence that the integrity of the British community and citizenship is not under pressure. Regrettably, for the past few years that has not been the situation.
We welcome the proposals to explain British citizenship to migrants and to introduce some language teaching and teaching of the constitution, so that when we adopt these people into our country and they become citizens they know rather more about our ways. The ceremony of adoption will be much better than the arrival of a brown envelope in the post. That is a wholly welcome proposal.
Perhaps I can turn from the common ground to ask a number of questions. We have all had trouble with the Dublin convention of 1991, which governs the European Community's practice with regard to immigration and asylum. Can the Minister, when he responds, give us a little more information on what progress is being made in the negotiations with other members of the Community to try to re-establish that convention on a more practical footing in this modern world? It has changed considerably since the agreement was made a decade ago.
Also, can the Minister explain exactly what the "gateway" is to be that will operate under the auspices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? Is it expected to pick up all asylum seekers? I doubt it. Is it a virtual system which will operate through our diplomatic missions across the world? Is it something that we are hoping to establish on this side of the Channel, in which case we shall be shutting the stable door after the horse has entered? Or are we expecting to be able to establish something on the other side of the Channel, in which case we shall need good co-operation from the French? It will be interesting to hear exactly how the gateway is expected to work.
Another welcome announcement in the Statement was the consultation on entitlement cards. It will be interesting to know whether that will be consultation on a pilot scheme that is to operate with asylum seekers or whether it is aimed in the longer term at the possibility of it becoming a national scheme. That matter has exercised Members of this House on both sides for some considerable time. It will be useful to hear more about it in the Minister's response.
We welcome the moves to accommodate asylum seekers in a better and more controlled way. If law and language facilities are available as well, that will be all to the good. But what is not in this paper is the problem
746
of illegal immigrants. We do not know how much illegal immigration takes place. We do not know how many illegal immigrants live in our community. Will the systems outlined by the Minister do anything to bring those numbers under control? We all have our thoughts on what the position is but none of us knows for sure.
Finally, we know that there is to be a Bill on this issue this Session. Will that Bill arrive in Parliament in the summer and in this House in the autumn? If so, we shall have a lot of work to do in a hurry. Or is the Bill in preparation and likely to arrive somewhat sooner? Those are relatively small questions but the answers will be enormously helpful to myself, my colleagues and the whole House.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the new holistic approach to the matters of immigration, asylum, nationality and citizenship. Too often in the past we have found that those issues have been used as political footballs rather than a constructive approach being taken. The Statement contains proposals which are, to an extent, a mixed bag. However, we shall approach them constructively. I am delighted that a trace of liberalism now seems to be filtering through the Conservative Party on this issue.
The Government are introducing a number of major concessions. We welcome the highly skilled migrant programme. But I warn the Government that, though generally it is a good idea, the proposal may lead to a dangerous brain drain from the countries which desperately require some of those people. We should be aware of that.
We also welcome the proposal that asylum seekers will no longer be held in prisons. Vouchers have now been replaced. Only a few days ago I put a question to the Minister asking whether there was a legal way in which an asylum seeker could enter this country. He gave me a very blunt answer—"No". I am delighted to see that he has given the matter some considerable thought and that there is now a gateway being created under the aegis of UNHCR. It is to be hoped that this will be a legal way in which persecuted people can claim their rightful place in a civilised society.
If we wish to command trust, confidence and respect from people in the wider community, it is right that they should be listened to. I trust that there will be ample consultation with them. I say this because in the past 10 years immigration/asylum legislation has been introduced on four separate occasions. At every stage we warned the Government about vouchers and prisons and about almost every issue that the Government are now discarding. If only they had listened to us during the late nights when we were dealing with the Committee stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
There are a number of issues on which we need further information. What proportion of asylum seekers will be housed in the new accommodation

747
centres and how many will be housed under the current dispersal arrangements? What importance is attached to overhauling the dispersal system?
I understand that there is a proposal in the document which refers to educating the children of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. This would not be right if education provisions are available in local schools. I hope the Minister can assure the House that we will put right our dispersal system before we do anything which may affect the education of these young people.
There is also the issue of improving the decision-making process. What plans do the Government have in this respect? It is a shame that it was only on a recount that we suddenly found there was a much larger backlog of asylum-seeking applications than first envisaged by the Home Office.
Can the levels of detention be kept in line with European averages? What hail safeguards will there be? The Government introduced statutory bail hearings under the 1999 Act, but they now give the impression that such hearings may be abolished. Will judicial review continue to be available? What about the resources required to deal with the backlog?
We welcome the new legitimate routes, but it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the numbers the Government envisage will make use of them.
As to citizenship, it is right that there should be an oath of allegiance. But it should be a two-way process. The Government should establish very clearly the rights and duties of those who seek citizenship, but, equally, such people should be protected.
More importantly, we welcome the ways and means whereby people can communicate much more than they have been able to in the past. But will the resources be available? Would it not be better to look for solutions from within community structures? There are examples of supplementary education being provided by communities, and this could assist in the task.
Two proposals cause us concern. I hope that the Home Office will not act as a marriage bureau. It states that it will not allow the switching arrangement whereby people in this country seek a change of status by getting married here. It is not the Government's job to determine who is or is not rightly married. That would create a tremendous amount of problems within the community. Equally, there is evidence that people seek their partners from within their communities. Again, it is not for the Government to put this kind of diktat on minorities in this country.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome that the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Dholakia, have given to the White Paper. I shall do my best to respond to some of their detailed points.
I cannot give an update of where we are on the Dublin convention negotiations. It is a matter for the EU and we need to establish a more cohesive system which is accepted across Europe. The intention, in
748
theory, was a good idea—but it did not quite work out in practice and therefore we need to have further negotiations.
As to the gateway and the work of the UNHCR, the numbers entering under this scheme will be very modest to start with. I do not want to give the House the impression that we are talking about thousands of people. We envisage perhaps 500 in the first year, a number similar to those accepted by other EU member states. For example, last year the Netherlands settled 500, Denmark 500 and Sweden 1,800. The United States, of course, settled considerably more and Australia settled 8,000. We envisage a modest start.
The scheme will not affect the situation at Sangatte. That is an issue between ourselves and the French. The modest numbers we are talking about will not affect Sangatte. The system is designed to provide a gateway, which does not exist at present, for people in the trouble spots of the world where the UNHCR is involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the consultation on entitlement cards. I should make it absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with asylum seekers. The new asylum application registration card is, from last week, being issued to all new asylum seekers. All those currently inside the system will certainly have their cards by the autumn. That has nothing to do with the entitlement card; it is specific and wholly exclusive to asylum seekers. The three paragraphs in the White Paper which refer to the entitlement card are for general information.
A consultation paper will be published in the spring/ early summer. I cannot say how extensive it will be, but it will be extensive enough to say, "This is a bad idea. Do not touch it", or, "There are ways of doing it". In other words, it will not say, "Here is a scheme. What do you think about it?", or, "Here are two schemes. Which one do you want?". It will also say, "No scheme at all".
We need to put these paragraphs into the White Paper now because it will enable our officials to talk openly with industry. We cannot do this surreptitiously behind closed doors and then bounce out a consultation paper. That would not allow us to have proper discussions with industry. The use of technology is crucial in an exercise such as this. Therefore it will be spring or summer before such a paper is produced. I am sure that it will be extensively debated.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about accommodation centres. At the moment, we have a plan to trial four centres. In fact we have only got a plan to trial four because that is all the money we have received from the Treasury to deal with the scheme. It is important because it will be a new system and we want to see how it works, if it works.
The four centres will have a total accommodation capacity of 3,000. If we use the spaces twice a year, we can put through only 6,000 people. That is less than 10 per cent of the inflow of new asylum seekers. We would

749
expect to have an initial decision and the result of an appeal within six months, enabling us to use each space twice a year. That will make for a faster process.
There is reference in the White Paper to more work being carried out on border controls. New technology equipment is now in place at the borders. We are able to use some equipment in France. We have excellent co-operation from our French partners, both in juxtaposed controls and with the British staff—both immigration and others—on the other side of the tunnel.
As to the timing of the Bill, all I can say is that it is under preparation. That is not to say that we are preparing it in advance of the consultation on the White Paper. There is an excellent list at pages 106 and 107 of the White Paper where the issues for which we need to legislate and those for which we do not are separated out. That will be useful for Members of this House and the other place. It will enable them to see that the White Paper goes beyond matters for which we need to legislate. The Bill will be modest. Our hope is to introduce it in the other place by early April. It may not come to this House before the Summer Recess but will be dealt with in the spill-over period. I keep telling people that this House sits longer hours and has shorter recesses. After this year, they will certainly believe me. That is the rough timing that we have in mind. I cannot pre-empt the timing, but the work is going on.
There is a consultation period in relation to the White Paper; namely, up to 21st or 22nd March. The time is short, it is true, but our intention is to legislate this Session and not to give the constant excuse that parliamentary time is not available.
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He said that White Paper is a mixed bag. It is. It is tough and tender. We make no apology for that. The title of the paper is Secure Borders, Safe Haven—indicating that we are not going to be "ripped off", but that this country is a safe haven, not "fortress Britain". That is the balance that we are seeking to strike.
The highly skilled migration programme started as recently as 28th January. Therefore, I have no idea how many people have applied. It is not our intention to raid the third world of skills. My colleagues in government would be up in arms had the programme been so designed. Only time will tell whether we have got the balance right in setting the requirements for people to join in. We shall know this time next year whether the programme has been a success, or whether it has been neutral in its effect.
We are genuinely open to consultation. This morning, I met almost a dozen NGOs and an issue was raised regarding ministers of religion—a point not mentioned in the White Paper. In reply to a particular question which I shall not repeat, I said: "Yes, take the opportunity of the consultation to raise that aspect if you wish". So nothing is excluded.
750
I mentioned the percentage of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. To begin with, it would be less than 10 per cent. If the system works—if we are satisfied that it works and can demonstrate as much—our intention would be to run it for those who need support. It would be run under the national asylum support system and there would be more than four centres—possibly a dozen or 16—subject to the approximate size of each centre, the average housing about 750 people.
It is not our intention that people remain in a centre for more than six months. In other circumstances I could not defend that. If there are families there with children, we want them to receive education, but we are not talking about the long term. The best place for children to be educated is in mainstream schools. They would not be in the accommodation centres for more than six months. Therefore, after that time they would be in the dispersal system, subject to the decisions made, and the children would enter mainstream schools. We are in discussion with the Department for Education and Skills. There are also legal obligations concerning children, including the stipulation that such children should not be treated differently. That aspect is important.
The current backlog of claims is just over 40,000, which is considerably down. We carried out a manual count, as I announced to the House in September. It meant that we started 18 months ago with a bigger backlog than we had thought—probably close to 200,000.
Turning to bail safeguards, I was asked about these when I met the NGOs. We shall not proceed with Part 3 in total. There are two sections—the section numbers escape me; I believe they are 51 and 53—that we shall retain. The presumption always was that bail would be automatic. We are not preventing anyone applying for bail. That is not the intention. There will be an increase in removal capacity. By definition, if we are going to run the system, we need extensive removal capacity. It will increase from the current figure of 1,500 to 2,800 when the new centres currently in preparation come fully on stream—I refer to the five centres, including Campsfield. That capacity of 2,800 will be increased to 4,000. Campsfield will close some time next year. It is very small, even claustrophobic compared to Yarlswood and the other new centres. We can easily assimilate the Campsfield capacity in the new capacity. No one will be denied an application for bail. The position has changed since the 1999 Act.
The independent appeal tribunal will be converted to a superior court of record. Clearly, there can be appeals beyond that on points of law. But in respect of judicial review, we are seeking to remove delays from the system. Presently, there are in-built delays across the whole system. We want people to put in a good, robust, comprehensive claim for asylum, have it considered fairly and dealt with quickly; and if there is a need for an appeal, to have that dealt with as quickly as possible—and not to allow, at each step, more and more appeals with new information, exploited by the legal industry, to the disadvantage of asylum seekers.

751
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the oath as it currently is, or the "pledge" as it will be known. It is set out in draft on page 111 of the White Paper. I freely admit that we have modelled it on the current Canadian oath. We have not invented anything new.
People who seek citizenship—British nationality—already swear an oath. The amount of ignorance outside is unbelievable. That already happens. But where does it take place? It takes place in a solicitor's back office. A form is filled in, it is sent off to Croydon, and the certificate comes back from Croydon. That is no way to become a British citizen. It almost sullies the process. We are seeking to have a pledge, using modern language, as can be seen from the draft. We seek to have that take place in a ceremony at a register office, possibly with members of the person's family, or with others who are seeking citizenship at the same time. The point of taking the pledge is the point at which the person will become a British citizen. The words are, "from this moment on". That language is not normally associated with this country. That is why we have looked at examples in Commonwealth countries. At present, an oath is taken in a solicitor's office, but the person is still not a British citizen. He or she still has to wait for the brown envelope to come back from Croydon. We want the process to mean something.
We also want the process to indicate that people are becoming part of the UK family—maintaining their own integrity, individuality and cultural identity, but having a basic knowledge of the language, a basic knowledge of the society and the ethics of the society that they are seeking to join. There is no compulsion to apply for nationality; that part is voluntary. The part that is not voluntary is having a knowledge of the English language. That is already included in the rules, but attention is not paid to it and it is not policed. Therefore, we want to create a process of which we can be proud, as can those who seek to join us in citizenship.
The question of resources is always difficult. There has been a massive increase in resources over the past couple of years. For example, we have doubled the number of staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, there has been extra training and more decisions are being taken. We are seeking extra resources in regard to some of these issues in the spending review for which negotiations will take place shortly.
We need the extra resources for what may seem a minor point, but it is one to which I and my noble friend Lord Janner will pay particular attention. I refer to the issue of war criminals. I do not mean those from the last war but in the future. The issue remains. We cannot afford to be in the position of having modern war criminals ending up in this country who have lied in order to come here, and whose citizenship rights we can do nothing to remove. The amount of resources is modest, but we need to obtain them.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that the Home Office should not be offering marriage guidance. No, it does not. As a government, we do not
752
seek to tell people whom they should marry. But we do have the right to say where they should live. That is the difference. If marriage is used for the purpose of coming into the country and is not genuine—although all such marriages appear "genuine" because the ceremony is genuine—the amount of switching in the first three months in terms of visitors is phenomenal. We are not talking about a few hundred. It is literally tens of thousands. Then there is the issue of the probationary period. It is currently a year. We intend to change that to two years. It is less likely that a bogus marriage could survive for that long. That is not say that people are in bondage. Noble Lords laugh, but the point is important. The ceremony is genuine, but if the marriage is bogus it will not last for two years. Therefore, we can take the appropriate action. We also want the domestic violence concession to be more widely known in cases of hostage-taking or domestic violence. That is a serious issue.
Given that people will often talk only about the measures that they do not like, I should also point out that we are proposing a relaxation for people who have been well established in long-term relationships by removing the need for a probationary period in such cases.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that the welfare of children of asylum seekers should be paramount? This is a matter of fundamental importance to the Refugee Council, which I had the honour of chairing some years ago. Secondly, will my noble friend think again about the important issue of bail safeguards? How many people are affected by it? Does the department have sufficient experience of the people who are applying for bail in this regard?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the welfare of the children is paramount. If their parents took the same view rather than sending them here as unaccompanied asylum seekers, we would not have such a large number of them arriving. They go straight to the welfare services and are not covered by the Home Office catchment. This is a serious issue that involves many hundreds of children. Their welfare is paramount. We are very concerned with their health, with ensuring that they are not exploited and with t heir education and their future.
I am afraid that I am not carrying figures on bail safeguards. That part of the 1999 Act has not been introduced. We do not have the experience. It assumed automatic bail. We are increasing the detention and removal capacity. People are still free to apply for bail. One of my constituency cases—I can still call it that—-who has been in detention a long time applied successfully for bail last week. The system is working, but we do not think that the plan of automatic bail envisaged in the 1999 Act is justified. We shall remove that part of the Act, except for the two sections referred to in the White Paper.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given that the mother-child relationship is primary in the transmission of language

753
and culture, will any requirement to show competence in English extend also to dependants and families accompanying applicants for immigration?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me an opportunity to put that issue to rest, I hope. The English language requirements have nothing to do with asylum seekers. People with genuine grounds for fleeing, such as a well-founded fear of persecution and torture, could arrive in this country not knowing a word of English other than "help" and be successfully accepted as refugees under the 1951 convention. Once they have received help, succour and sustenance, their main requirement may be to get back and help to knock out the tyrants who caused them to flee their country in the first place.
The language issue is relevant only to those seeking nationality and UK citizenship. Not every asylum seeker wants British nationality. Not every person coming to this country for work, for a holiday or under the work permit scheme wants nationality. For some people, seeking UK citizenship may involve giving up their own citizenship—although we would not force that because we are a dual nationality country. That is a big step. The requirement would apply to the main applicant and to spouses. There is a limit to what can be done with children. The requirement relates only to those seeking citizenship. The rules for citizenship cover residence and other issues. We are not talking about people who claim asylum being covered by that proposal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although many of the questions that have been put to the Minister so far have dealt with asylum and asylum seekers, the White Paper also deals with nationality and immigration and mentions that we shall have legislation later this Session. In formulating that legislation, will the Government bear in mind that in the past 50 years we have already admitted several million people from various parts of the world and that as a result some of our urban areas now have a different ethnic composition from that which they used to have? Will they also bear in mind that we have problems of education, housing and employment? Unless we are rather careful, a great increase in immigration will increase those problems still further.
Having said that, I greatly welcome the oath of allegiance, to which the noble Lord referred, on page 111 of the White Paper. There are other potential factors that are in the national interest. However, in preparing the legislation, in the interests of the people already in this country, whatever their ethnic origins, the Government must ensure that we do not have large numbers of people still coming here.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a balance to be struck. It is clear from how the chapters are set out. People are coming here anyway. One of the chapters deals with illegal working. That does not necessarily mean only people who are in the country illegally, although there is a correlation. We are seeking to open
754
up legitimate, up-front, in-your-face employment routes to this country, particularly in certain areas in which we are short of people. One of the annexes to the White Paper sets out the massive shortages that we have in some of our industries. They are worried about a clampdown on illegal working because we may close down an industry by mistake. If we can have up-front, managed migration for economic reasons on a range of issues that are set out in the White Paper and then clamp down on the traffickers in humans by tightening up on the border controls, we can achieve a balance so that fewer people are encouraged or feel that they are forced into the hands of the traffickers in order to buy a ticket to come to the UK to work illegally, if that is what they were intending to do. The one may balance the other. I cannot prove that, but our intention is to adopt such a balanced approach.
The noble Lord was complimentary about the words of the pledge. There is nothing new about that. Those who seek citizenship today—other than those who have it by birth—already have to take an oath. We are not introducing an oath; we are modernising the oath and introducing a ceremony and the language requirements.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the decision to close Campsfield House. Will my noble friend say a little more about the gateway idea, which seems interesting and imaginative on the face of it? My noble friend more or less suggested that it may be an experiment at one location. If it works at the first location, is the intention to extend the idea of gateways to further locations? Will they be in Europe and in other countries? Can he give an assurance that people there will be given the same rights of appeal as they would have within the UK?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer those questions on the gateway. My noble friend must not assume from what I said earlier that we are talking about one location. We may be, but we do not know yet. We are in discussion with the UNHCR on that. I said that to start with the programme would be extremely modest. I think that I gave a figure of about 500 a year. That is extremely modest. I do not know the way that applications will be made. We shall choose the people in those situations. We will be accused of cherry picking but I believe that we are entitled to make the choice. I cannot say about normal rights of appeal because we will offer places in conjunction, on a quota system. I am not sure that appeal rights would be justified.
I welcome the noble Lord's comment about Campsfield House, which does not meet the required standards. It is by far the smallest of the five removal centres, so we can easily absorb its capacity at the centres coming on stream and those we plan to build this year.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the White Paper contains bad and good. I sometimes think that your Lordships' Chamber and the outside world are very different places. From the media today, one might conclude

755
that this was a draconian set of new controls over immigration and, by extension, over ethnic minorities in this country. The publicity that the White Paper has received so far has done nothing but harm to community relations in respect of the impression given over the blame for riots and asylum problems.
I declare an interest as my wife is an ESOL teacher. What provision are the Government making for the considerable extension to ESOL classes that will be necessary if the proposal for English tests is adopted? Do the Government know the current length of the waiting list and the extent of the extra resources that will be put into ESOL?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the plan is to provide English language classes through the further education system. We have some 450 excellent colleges providing services to millions of our fellow citizens. We are having discussions with the Department for Education. No one is denying that provision will have to be resourced. As we are imposing a requirement in respect of the English language, it is incumbent on the Government to provide the appropriate facilities and resources.
The noble Lord's opening remarks were just the kind that can inflame the situation. He is generating his own headlines. Nothing in the White Paper justifies his comments about the impression created outside. The opposite is true. If one wants to cherry pick to make a point, that is fine—but that is not the purpose of the White Paper.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it has taken 30 years or more for my noble friend Lady Golding and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and my noble friend the Minister to achieve the war crimes section of the White Paper? It has scarcely been mentioned but as a former war crimes investigator, I welcome those proposals. It is important to do what we can to stop Britain being regarded as the world's ultimate haven for war criminals. That was so in the past, with the result that thousands of Nazi war criminals—some in the Waffen SS—were admitted to this country. Few of them have been prosecuted. Today, people are coming here from all parts of the world without the sort of checks that the White Paper suggests will be imposed. Can my noble friend say, in light of that good news, how long he expects it will be before legislation on the lines of the White Paper is brought before the House and put into force?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, when I joined the Home Office, I had resigned nominally as honorary vice-president of the all-party war crimes group but I did not stop working. I do not claim any credit. The work on war criminals was continuing. There had been discussions and meetings between the former ministerial team and the all-party group. The issue needed picking up and dusting down but I assure my
756
noble friend that the measures implied by the section on war crimes will be in the legislation being introduced in April.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in declaring an interest as director of the Foundation for Citizenship at Liverpool John Moores University, I strongly welcome the provisions in Chapter 2 concerning the teaching of citizenship. Can the Minister say more about how that teaching will be discharged and by whom? I welcome also the proposal in Annex B for an affirmation or oath of loyalty. The words used there are simple and clear and place proper emphasis on the teaching of duties and responsibilities. I welcome the Minister's comments about common shared values being celebrated in a proper ceremony.
As to Chapter 5, will the Minister give a firm commitment today to incorporating in whatever legislation is eventually laid before the House the definition of people trafficking from the Trafficking Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime? Does the Minister agree that that would help to persuade countries where people trafficking routes have their origins of the international obligation to tackle trafficking and to assist the Government's proper objective of stamping it out?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the White Paper is very much a strategy document and foreshadows several consultation papers on various issues. I do not know how many but probably half a dozen. We are not being prescriptive but genuinely want to consult. Our intention is to make use of our excellent further education colleges. One will not pop along to the Home Office for citizenship classes because it is not competent to deliver that quality of education. 'The further education system will be brought on stream and resourced.
I do not carry around the definition for which the noble Lord asked—and it is easy to locate. I assure the noble Lord that the definition of people trafficking, as opposed to that of smuggling, will be delineated in the legislation. That needs to be done because we shall be upping the sentences for anyone involved in people trafficking. We expect the courts to take a robust line, which is why we shall increase the maximum sentences.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I counted a score of individual announcements in the Statement that I am delighted to welcome unreservedly. There has been disproportionate asylum-seeker pressure on individual local communities and their authorities. Does anything in the Statement promise alleviation in that regard?

757
Pursuant to one of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will students from the third world automatically get transferred to the work permit scheme? Finally, does the Minister detect any recovery of self-confidence and morale in the Immigration Service? That is potentially a key factor in the success of the policies.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the dispersal arrangements will continue. We are not abandoning dispersal away from London and the South East, although it is true that we have some special rules for young people. We plan to pilot four accommodation centres. Noble Lords will have seen the list of eight potential sites. Others will be added before a decision is made. Those sites are away from London and the South East. We do not want a return to the days when those areas were under pressure, so dispersal will continue. If, in due course, the system comprises exclusively accommodation centres, they will be away from areas that caused problems in the past. We want to even up the pressure on authorities, not place a greater burden on those with a disproportionate share at present.
I am not sure that student transfers to the work permit scheme will be automatic. The present discretionary policy allows individuals who cease to be students to opt into work. That has not been an upfront policy, so we do not know the scale of applications. We will get a better idea of the situation by including the policy in the immigration rules and making it known more publicly that we will operate that policy. As it will be possible to opt into work permit-type arrangements, that option probably will not be open to all comers. The decision will depend on various factors. Although the arrangements are not necessarily directed at students from the third world, neither are those students ruled out.
As for morale in the Immigration Service, I visit immigration ports of entry as often as I can. A couple of weeks ago, I spent five hours at one port of entry on a Friday, and five hours at another on a Saturday—at Gatwick and at Heathrow. The staff are high-quality people. Although many of them have joined only recently, because of the extra resources, they truly enjoy their work. They are also always telling me how to do things better. We have very good people, and we are doing what we can to ensure that their terms and conditions are good. We want to ensure that they are not overwhelmed because we have failed to provide resources for one part of the system so that it is a misery for them to come to work each day. We want it to be a joy to work each day.
We have done much dispersal within our own system in the immigration and nationality directorate to Liverpool and to Leeds. We are ensuring that staff have the type of conditions, such as the provision of crèches, that are available to people in the South East. We are working to ensure that conditions are good.

Export Control Bill
4.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): 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 Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Export Controls]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 2, after "order" insert ", after consultation with the relevant industrial organisations,"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 1 and my noble friend Lady Anelay will speak to Amendment No. 2 which is grouped with it.
In introducing this same amendment to the Committee of the other place, my honourable friend the Member for Aldershot described it as "very important". That view was clearly shared by the Committee, where no fewer than nine Members took part and for which the report covers 10 columns of the Official Report. Perhaps it was just the excitement of being the first debate in Committee on the Bill's detail. Having spent a large part of the Christmas Recess and the weeks since working on the Bill, any excitement that I may have felt has long since been subdued. However, I do agree about the importance of this deceptively short amendment.
The fact is that the Bill's core is not in the body of the Bill itself but in the secondary legislation. I make no apology for reminding your Lordships that we still do not know for certain what the contents of that secondary legislation will be. We have now had the advantage, which Members of the other place did not have at the Bill's early stages, of seeing what the Government call the "dummy orders"—a new phenomenon that I have not come across before, but which is somehow different from a draft order. However, dummy or draft, there is something out there for consultation with what the Government believe to be "interested parties".
Assuming, as I am prepared to do always, that the consultation is not a piece of window dressing, we cannot be sure whether the dummy orders will be identical to their final form. But that is not the end of the matter. As the subsection that we are considering—the very first subsection of the first clause of the Bill—makes clear, the Secretary of State will have a continuous power to make fresh orders that can add to or detract from the type of goods governed by the legislation. He is also seeking power to amend from time to time the schedule which contains the nub of the Bill by describing the purposes for which control orders can be made.
At the moment, the Government are not offering to make all these orders, which drastically alter the powers we are about to give them, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, although that is something that we hope we will be able to alter later in Committee. On Second Reading in the other place, the Government made considerable play of the extent of the consultation that they had undertaken since publication of the White Paper and the draft Bill early in 2001. The Government are now consulting widely about the dummy orders.
Are we to assume that the Government's philosophy is that the moment Parliament has agreed to this Bill and the first batch of dummy orders, a line will be firmly drawn under the consultation process? Is it the Government's intention that the Secretary of State will then be free to make such further orders as he wishes without seeking the opinions of the defence industry, and subject only to such cursory parliamentary scrutiny as the parliamentary process allows for secondary legislation?
I have to point out that by accepting this amendment the Government will not be seriously circumscribing their powers. As my honourable friend told the Committee of the other place, what they would be doing is to consult those affected before they exercise the sweeping powers that they are taking, and advertising to industry and commerce that they desire partnership with them.
To answer a question that was asked in the other place, and before it is asked here, I should tell your Lorclships that my noble friend Lady Anelay is dealing with the matter of cultural objects. I should also mention that if, as I hope, the amendment is accepted, identical amendments will be needed to Clauses 2(1), 4(I) and 5(1). However, those can be dealt with as part of the tidying up process at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As has been headlined by my noble friend Lady Miller, I shall speak to my Amendment No. 2 which has been grouped with her Amendment No. 1. It is a somewhat unusual procedure, hut it is unusual legislation. In another place, the matter of controls over cultural objects received scant regard, but we hope to redress that deficit in this House. The Bill is unusual also in that wide controls over the export of cultural objects would come within the Bill's remit. It feels as though culture is being piggybacked in a rather uncomfortable way on a Bill that, so far as the outside world is concerned, is mostly about military exports of a very serious nature.
As my noble friend said, last year, the Government conducted consultation when they issued their White Paper. However, although the Government sent the White Paper to an extensive list of cultural organisations, there was a lack of understanding among those organisations about the fact that their part in export controls was within the Bill's remit.
The purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to require the Government to consult the relevant cultural organisations before they impose export controls by means of an order. One would expect that export
760
controls would usually be exercised in pursuance of the purposes of paragraphs 1, 2 or 8 of the schedule as currently drafted. Although I appreciate that amendments tabled this week by the Minister would substantially rewrite the schedule, at the moment, I have to deal with the schedule as currently drafted.
My noble friend Lady Miller raised an important issue in moving her amendment: there should he consultation with the relevant organisations before an order is laid before the House. It is important that there should be such a requirement in the Bill.
Clause 1 does of course cover far more than control of the export of military goods; it provides powers for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to control the export of cultural objects. Those objects could be anything from paintings to sculptures to textiles or perhaps historic weaponry. I say perhaps because, like my noble friend, I appreciate that this enabling Bill leaves so much to the imagination.
On 18th October 2001, the Minister's honourable friend in another place, Mr Griffiths, said:
"Our commitment is to have full public consultation on draft secondary legislation, which will provide everyone wii h an interest the opportunity to consider and comment on new controls introduced under the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 18/10/01; col. 139.]
If that is a government commitment, why not include it in the Bill? Moreover, referring to Mr Griffiths's words, what are the "new controls" that will affect the cultural export market? I found the Minister's use of the word "new" worrying in this particular context.
The language in the Explanatory Notes also rang some alarm bells. Paragraph 9 states that the DTI will use the powers of the Bill,
"to consolidate existing secondary legislation"—
that is fine—but paragraph 10 states,
"the DCMS will establish controls",
as if that is something new. I understand from the DCMS—I thank the members of the Bill team to whom I have spoken who have always assisted me as far as they can and with courtesy—that the intension is to embody in the Bill those controls which are currently the status quo. The problem is that it is difficult for the interested observer to know what the status quo is. Therefore, Amendment No. 2 and other amendments that I have tabled seek to give the Government an opportunity to explain how the export control system works now with regard to the export of objects of cultural interest and how it will work in the future.
Last March the then Minister responsible for the arts, Mr Howarth, made the point that Britain has the second largest art market in the world, valued at around £4.5 billion in 1999, of which the antiquities market alone generated £15 million. Can the Minister give us more up-to-date figures? If not, does he agree in any event that our art market is vibrant, makes a significant contribution to the UK economy and,

761
therefore, should be consulted before orders are laid which could, if we are not careful, impose damaging controls on its legitimate operation?
Lord Razzall: I make a straightforward point. It is not for me to determine whether or not the Government wish to extend the consultation on the secondary legislation. However, if they are minded to do so, it is important to recognise that it is not just relevant industrial organisations which are interested in the Bill. The attendance in the Chamber today and the contents of all our mailbags indicate considerable interest among all kinds of people, ranging from the Archbishop of Canterbury through to the relevant NGOs, let alone the other 63 bishops, in both the primary legislation and any secondary legislation that flows from it. Therefore, if the Government are minded to accept the noble Baroness's amendment, I trust that the consultation will not be limited to relevant industrial organisations. I do not wish to be contentious vis-à-vis the other opposition party in this Chamber but I believe that all its amendments tend to consider matters primarily from the point of view of the armaments industry without recognising necessarily that other interests are concerned about the Bill and are represented in the Chamber.
Lord Judd: Before the Minister replies I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. At the beginning of our proceedings I should make very plain that I am closely involved in the work of Saferworld as honorary senior fellow. I was involved with that body professionally until recently. That should be known to the Committee because obviously that work considerably informs the contributions which I hope to make to the discussion.
Following what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, I do not follow the logic of the amendment. It seems to me that if there is to be consultation it should be recognised not just that there are many NGOs in this country and other bodies, Churches and so on, which may have a view, but also that there are organisations and NGOs with considerable knowledge of the situation in the country concerned whose insight and in-depth knowledge may be indispensable at that juncture. The effect of these amendments is exclusive rather than inclusive and that is unfortunate.
However, I also accept from what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that if one were really to open up the discussion to everyone who could conceivably have an interest, it might be a difficult situation for the Government to handle. I imagine that that may well be the thrust of their case.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support my noble friend Lady Anelay on Amendment No. 2. I declare an immediate unremunerated interest as the president of the British Antique Dealers' Association and also the British Art Market Federation. It is in that context that I want to say a few words. The British Art Market Federation is composed of about 15 different
762
individual parts of the art market which were brought together at the invitation of the previous government in 1996 so that the art market could speak with a single voice. The art market has been under threat. My noble friend mentioned the size of that market. I refer to measures emanating from the European Union in Brussels and the co-operation and quality of consultation that have existed between the art market and the Government during the past five years since the federation was created. The good intentions of the Government impressed the trade and influenced its efforts to fight on the Government's behalf. Therefore, I strongly reinforce what has been said. I hope that that spirit can be maintained as regards the measures proposed in the Bill.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support Amendment No. 2. I believe that there is a black hole in the schedule to the Bill. Where one is dealing with control orders in respect of arms there is a long table to guide the Minister in bringing forward an order under one of the first three clauses of the Bill. However, as regards objects of cultural interest, there is absolutely no guidance at all. I endorse the remarks of the proposer of the amendment. It seems entirely reasonable that an important part of our economy should have some clear purpose in the real meaning of that word incorporated onto the face of the Bill.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. I say right at the start that the export of cultural objects is a matter of great importance to us. If it does not, in the course of the debate, receive as much attention as the export of military equipment, that is not because we do not think that it is important but simply because it does not produce quite so much interest and excitement when considering the Bill. I am happy to say right at the beginning that we think that a vibrant market in such items is extremely important. That does not appear in great detail in the schedule because there is not a great area of debate—clearly, there can be some debate—as regards what comprises a cultural object, whereas, as the Committee knows, there is considerable debate as regards what objects comprise military equipment.
As regards the two amendments—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. The issue is not the definition of a cultural object so much as the purpose for which a prohibition can be imposed under the Bill.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This has been an area of some confusion. The schedule defines goods which can be exported. It is unfortunate that it was originally entitled "Purposes". That led to much debate. The noble Lord will see that we have tabled amendments to amend the wording to that of goods to be controlled.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I do not want to prolong the debate. However, does the Minister recall that for many years one of the reasons that successive governments gave for not introducing the 1970

763
UNESCO convention relating to the illicit traffic in cultural goods was the difficulty in defining precisely what cultural goods would be included under the UNESCO convention? I believe that that was resolved only when the European Community regulation dealing with a similar issue was introduced. Does not the Minister feel that he is rather over-simplifying what may be quite a complex matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I do not think that I can comment on the excuses previous governments have given for not introducing legislation or conventions. So far as I am aware, there has not been a great debate on the matter with regard to the Bill we are discussing. I say to the noble Baroness that there are no new controls for cultural objects contemplated. The dummy draft order prepared by the DCMS reflects simply the current controls under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. There are no new issues so far as that is concerned.
I turn to the effect of the amendments. They would impose a requirement on the Government to carry out consultations with relevant industrial or cultural organisations before making export control orders under Clause 1. The Government believe that the amendments are unnecessary. I hesitate to use the word "unnecessary" as I know that the noble Baroness does not like that term. However, we feel that they are unnecessary and also have some unfortunate consequences.
As noble Lords will know, we plan a full public consultation in the spring on the intended controls to be set out in the draft orders to be made on implementation of the Bill's powers. We see this process as one that can helpfully inform all interested organisations about the new controls and also enable us to learn more about the concerns that they may have. This will follow extensive consultation that has already taken place on the draft Bill and before that on the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, with each of those consultations eliciting responses from a number of organisations, including industrial and cultural ones. For example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has consulted the Advisory Council on the Export of Works of Art which represents a wide range of views from the arts and antiquities trade as well as museums and galleries, and which is the body normally consulted by the DCMS on matters relating to export controls on cultural objects.
In addition to formal public consultations, the Government have also held meetings with various interested organisations to explain our thinking about the new controls. I take the point that it is not simply a question of consultation with industrial organisations. The NGOs have a great interest in and knowledge of this subject as will become clear in this debate. They need to be, and I hope have been, consulted properly.
The amendments could have some unfortunate consequences. Export controls may need to be implemented without delay to meet our obligations to international bodies. A requirement to consult every time an amendment order was made would prevent our implementing such obligations quickly.
764
In addition, as drafted the amendments would require consultations with industrial organisations about controls related to objects of cultural interest and consultations with cultural organisations in relation to strategic exports, which would not be appropriate. It is not a substantive point; we could correct it in the drafting. However, the speed of implementation is an important issue. For those reasons I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his response which I shall read carefully. However, before withdrawing the amendment, perhaps I may make one comment on behalf of my noble friend. I was interested in the Minister's comment that the issue of culture does not raise the same excitement. The subject was not mentioned in another place. I pay tribute to my noble friend for alerting the House to this important issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 3, at end insert ", subject to the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Schedule"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 82, grouped with it.
The purpose of the amendment is to put on the face of the Bill the provisions of the schedule which appear in the dummy cultural order published by the Government. My intention is to pose a fundamental question. How do and how should I he Government reach a judgment about which cultural items should or should not be granted an export licence? What processes of evaluation do the Government follow in making that decision? The dummy order states that all objects are prohibited from being exported unless they are licensed by the Secretary of State unless they fall into the categories listed in the schedule to the dummy order. It becomes somewhat tortuous.
Amendment No. 82 simply puts the categories listed in the dummy order on the face of the Bill. It is a probing amendment to elicit information from the Government.
In response to Amendment No. 2 the Minister said that no new issues are intended to be raised within the remit of the schedule to the dummy order. My question relates not only to the content of the schedule but also asks the Government why they have continued with the existing rules. I understand that they arise from the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. It has been around for a while. Why are we at that stage? Did the Government consider adopting different definitions?
Have the Government considered adding to subsections (2) and (3) the category of "child"; or is a child's property covered in some other way? Would "child" fall within category four on the basis that a

765
child's property is that of his or her parents? I am not a lawyer, as is the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I ask that question simply for information.
The Government have stated that they will consult on the dummy order when it becomes a draft statutory instrument. The Minister's responses today are therefore important because they will inform that consultation process. Can the Minister confirm today that the format currently in the dummy order will not be affected by the government Amendment No. 81 to paragraph 8 of the schedule, tabled this week by the Government. The Government's new amendment removes the reference in paragraph 8 to secondary legislation. What is the significance of that? I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The noble Baroness's amendment is, I think, regarded as a probing amendment. I am a little uncertain; I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the position to me. Such provisions as we see here do not offer the protection which currently exists for national treasures of recent production. I refer to paintings, drawings or manuscripts produced in the past 50 years. I understand that under the Waverley criteria the reviewing committee on works of art would be able to recommend to the Secretary of State that a temporary ban be imposed on the export of such works.
Let us imagine that the working drawings by Antony Gormley, our distinguished contemporary artist, of The Angel of the North had been sold and it was suggested that they might be exported. It would be a matter of concern. The reviewing committee might well wish to recommend that the Secretary of State impose a temporary ban. I have the impression that such an issue has not been contemplated here. I should like the Minister's assurance that the current provisions restricting the immediate import of national treasures of recent production could apply equally to exports. The scientific manuscripts of Crick and Watson would fall within this category.
I understand that they can currently be protected but I have the impression that there is a risk that that might not continue. I should like the Minister's assurance that I am in error on that point.
Lord Hylton: When replying, perhaps the Minister will say something about stolen and looted cultural goods. We all know that the major auction houses and the more reputable and bona fide dealers do their level best to prevent stolen and looted items being traded. That is obviously the right place to stop such trade if possible. Nevertheless, in recent years there have been a number of court cases where the provenance and origin of sometimes valuable items have been called into question. If the preliminary trade safeguards fail, could there be circumstances in which the Government would prohibit the export of such items?
5 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: In responding to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, I am in
766
danger of repeating a little of what my noble friend has already said in reply to Amendment No. 1, which was moved a few moments ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will have already gathered that we can clarify one point, which is that from time to time we shall be referring to a dummy draft order to cover both concepts that she suggested might be a divisive issue for the Government. "Dummy draft order" is a phrase that we shall use about the Government's intentions on the orders referred to in the Bill.
The Government believe that Amendment No. 3 is unnecessary because the enabling power under Clause 1(1) applies to cultural objects as it does to the export of strategic goods. The Government have published a dummy draft order covering export controls for cultural objects. It is not intended, as my noble friend said a few moments ago, to change substantially the existing export control regime for cultural objects and the dummy draft order largely reflects the provisions contained in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, suggested that that order might not be the be-all and end-all of resolving such issues.
Of course, we recognise that there are aspects of that legislation that require further consideration. For example, the current definition of cultural objects in the order does not include fossils. To date the Government have been unable to find a definition of fossils that is acceptable to those with an interest in palaeontology matters. Work continues on finding a suitable definition, but until that work is completed, it will be difficult for us to make progress.
However, the term "objects of cultural interest" in the Bill was drafted in sufficiently wide terms to include objects of historical or scientific interest, so that when an acceptable definition of fossils does eventually emerge, they can be brought within the order-making powers of the Bill and can be utilised to amend the current definition of cultural objects in the dummy draft order. The Government do not consider that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for defining cultural objects. Such detail should be set out in an order under the Bill.
An unfortunate consequence of Amendment No. 3 is that it introduces an ambiguity as to how the controls under the Bill are to operate and whether they cover strategic goods. The key point is that the Bill will provide the powers necessary to control the export of objects of cultural interest and strategic goods. Those powers will be exercised by means of separate orders under subsection (I), subject to parliamentary approval as provided for in Clause 12(5). At the very least it would be confusing to link the separate orders made under Clause 1(1) for the two distinct categories in the Bill. The considerations that apply to the making of orders on objects of cultural interest are self-evidently different from those that apply to the making of orders on strategic goods, and it is sensible to keep them distinct.
The effect of Amendment No. 82, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke, is to define the cultural objects that will be subject to export controls and those

767
that are excepted from such controls. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I have already said that the Government do not intend to make a substantial change to the export control regime applicable to cultural objects. The Bill provides the enabling power in Clauses 1 and 6 for the order setting out the licensing regime for cultural objects. The dummy draft order largely reflects the provisions contained in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. The amendment to which the noble Baroness spoke is contained in the current 1992 order and in the dummy order. The order is the appropriate place for defining the detail of the cultural objects that will be subject to the export controls.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these issues. I pay tribute to the fact that culture is on our agenda. Not for the first time, it may be thought, that aspersions have been cast on the other place, but I am sure that it is because of the exigencies of time rather than interest in the subject on the part of my honourable friends at the other end of the Corridor. The Bill has given us the opportunity to explain the general application of export controls for cultural objects, and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate on the matter of how cultural objects are defined. I thank my noble friend Lord Renfrew, in particular, for raising the issue of what happens to cultural objects that are of less than 50 years' creation as it has elicited from the Government a careful explanation that the dummy order that we currently see will not necessarily be the order that the Cully grown baby will suck when the consultation paper is produced. We are reminded of the dangers of passing enabling legislation when we have been unable to get to grips with the full detail of what the Government are trying to achieve, even when we may fully agree with the Government's objectives with regard to cultural objects.
I was particularly intrigued by the Minister's description of the difficulty in defining fossils. Quietly, as ever, my noble friend, my Whip, Lord Luke, came to the Government's aid. His suggestion is quite easy in that it is anything over 50 years old. I thank him very much; I have now become a fossil. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert "and may mean the prohibition or regulation of their loan to a person, company or institution located outside the United Kingdom"
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to examine the meaning of the word "export" within the operation of the Bill with regard to cultural objects. It is a probing amendment to ask the Government how the Bill will cover the situation when a person or an institution such as a museum decides to lend an article to a person overseas or to an overseas
768
museum. Will the Government's policy on the granting of export licences vary according to whether the loan is made by either an individual or a museum? Or, is the policy approach the same regardless of who the lender may be? Will their policy about granting an export licence in such a circumstance be different if the loan is on a short-term or a long-term basis? Does the Department for Culture, Media and Sport operate a definition of short term and long term?
Will the decision-making process of the DCMS be influenced by the fact that the loan involves a payment to the person or body lending the item? Does the question of access to the cultural object in its new place have relevance? For example, will the exhibition of the item be open to the public in general or only to invited guests?
Two examples come to mind. The first is with regard to the Royal Armouries. I note that a Written Answer on this subject from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has been published today. I tabled Questions for Written Answer in December, following a newspaper report that the Royal Armouries would be asking the Government's permission to make a long-term loan of a number of items to an institution in America. It was said in the press that the loan would be made in exchange for payment and that it would, in effect, mean the permanent removal of the objects from this country. It is a potentially controversial issue that could have widespread ramifications throughout the museums world.
The wording of my Question was also prompted by the Written Answer made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on 4th December when she said that she had been consulted about the Royal Armouries plans for the long-term loan of items from the Royal Armouries under Section 21 of the National Heritage Act 1983 in exchange for payments. It was the Government's use of the word "payments" that may have led to the difficulty. The noble Baroness went on to say that the amount of money that the Royal Armouries would receive in respect of the loan had yet to be determined.
Subsequently I had a meeting with the Master of the Royal Armouries, Mr Guy Wilson, and I am now aware that the RA believes that the wording of the Government's Written Answer may, however unintentionally—I accept that it may be completely unintentional—have given a misleading picture of the financial arrangements that are intended to underpin any loan that may take place to the Owsley Brown Frazier Historical Arms Museum in Louisville, Kentucky.
As the Minister will be aware, the proposal is to create a Royal Armouries exhibition platform within a new museum dedicated to fostering greater understanding of the subject of arms and armour. The belief is that success in that project will help to fulfil a key aspect of that museum's mission statement, which is, "to promote in the United Kingdom and world-wide the knowledge and appreciation of arms and armour.
It also wishes to take forward the call for the internationalisation of museums.
As I understand it—I return to the moot point of payments—the Royal Armouries would not receive payments in the commonly understood meaning of the word; in other words, that would not involve hire, rent or profit. It says that the exhibition will be funded on a strict cost-recovery basis under the terms of its existing loan policy. I understand that that reflects the current export licence arrangements operated by the Government, which limit loans to three years.
In addition to that, I am told, an agreement is being drafted that would enable the Royal Armouries to develop a membership and retail business based in Kentucky. It says that it is anticipated that that will increase self-reliance and lead to the improvement of the services that the Royal Armouries currently provides in the UK. Can the Minister say whether that is indeed his understanding of the proposal? Does that kind of arrangement still fall within the remit of the Bill?
My second example is, of course, that of the Elgin Marbles. I have already said to the Minister that I could not resist raising that issue today. The Minister will be aware that there is a coalition of Members in another place who want the Elgin Marbles to be sent to Greece for the period of the Olympic Games. Indeed, on Tuesday of this week, the Minister's honourable friend in another place, Mr Edward O'Hara, introduced a Bill that raises the whole profile of the Elgin Marbles yet again. It also raises questions about the powers of trustees in the care and control of their exhibits.
Could the powers conferred on the Government by the Export Control Bill be used to allow that loan to be made or pressure to be put on the British Museum by the Government to make the loan? Will the Government today give an assurance that they will not put such pressure on the British Museum and that they will not agree to the loan of the Elgin Marbles to Greece if it were legally possible for that loan to be made?
The robust stance taken by Dr Robert Anderson, the director of the British Museum, is most welcome. Members of the Committee will have seen his article in The Times on Tuesday, 15th January. He wrote:
"The first responsibility of the museum is … to keep the objects safe for present and future generations".
He pointed out that in this particular case there is a legal limit on the powers of trustees. They cannot dispose of the items and they cannot lend them where there is no guarantee of those objects being returned.
The British Museum has been robust. Can the Government be equally robust? Have they received a request from the Greek Government for the loan of the Elgin Marbles during the Olympics? If not, will they undertake to reject it out of hand if such a request is made? Do they agree with me that the trustees of cultural institutions are normally in the best position to determine whether items held under their guardianship should or should not be exported, and
770
that the Government should not interfere in that process unless it is clear that important issues of national interest are raised? I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The amendment is specifically drafted to cover cultural goods but the point that it raises covers all goods, including arms. When the Minister replies, would he be so kind as to tell the House whether the word "exportation" in subsection (2), which would be altered by the amendment, means the same as the word "removal" in subsection (6)? I hope that it does. If it does not, I suspect that we may need to consider the amendment much more carefully. I hope that he will tell the Committee that exportation means "removal on any terms", whether that involves loan, licence, free use or whatever else. If it does not mean that, the ways round arms control restrictions will be very wide. There are tricks that those who are determined to play them can get up to; they include not selling goods but giving them on free loan or through another arrangement. That is as relevant to arms as to cultural objects.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise to add a curious historical footnote to the speech of my noble friend Lady Anelay. I attended the EU cultural council when it was introducing the directive about legitimate and illegitimate exports of works of art from one EU country to another. It so happened—I believe that I was the only person who noticed this—that the threshold for that legislation was set at such a level that the Elgin Marbles were precisely on its cusp and would not have been affected by the provisions. I acknowledge that there has been massive inflation between 1816 and the 1990s, but it was a very curious coincidence that that should have been so. I have to say that I did not have the moral courage to tell Melina Mercouri, who was at that stage the Greek cultural Minister, of the nature of the coincidence.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I believe in dealing with easy matters first. The easy matter is to tell the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that exportation means "removal from this country". I hope that that assures him. I say that because I am briefed to respond as accurately and effectively as I can on matters cultural, and I noticed that he brought in the issue of the exportation of arms. My noble friend Lord Bach largely deals with that, and I find myself somewhat ill-equipped to address that point. I assure him that the question that he raised is answered in the terms that I have given.
The Government wish the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to withdraw the amendment, although we value the opportunity it gives us to address some of the key issues—the cultural dimensions—of the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to introduce a further prohibition or regulation to the export control powers in Clause 1 in respect of the loan of goods covered by the Bill to a person, company or institution outside the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the power

771
to prohibit and regulate exports in Clause 1 certainly includes the power to provide for temporary export licences where, for example, cultural objects are loaned either by museums or private individuals to go on exhibition in foreign countries.
As is currently the case, the Government will issue a number of open licences without the need to obtain an individual export licence from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The two types of open licence currently in operation are the open general export licence, or OGEL, and the open individual export licence, or OIEL. The OGEL permits the export for up to three months of some common temporary exports and the re-export of some common temporary imports. An OIEL that is granted to a named individual, company or institution permits the temporary export of specified objects (for up to one year or, in some cases, two years) that are owned by them or in their care. In cases that are not covered by those two categories, an individual may apply for a temporary export for the loan of an item abroad. Such a licence is normally granted on condition that the object be returned by a specified date.
We are accordingly in a position to assure the noble Baroness that the order-making powers do extend to the loan of cultural objects. That is why the amendment is unnecessary.
The noble Baroness took the opportunity to raise two specific areas of considerable national interest. I believe that we all delight in the fact that the Royal Armouries has shown the enterprise to become involved in possible development in the United States with regard to its exhibits. I shall try to deal with the specific points raised by the noble Baroness in relation to the Royal Armouries in the order in which she raised them.
The Government's policy on the granting of an export licence does not vary according to whether the loan is made by an individual or by a museum. The granting of a licence is not based on whether the loan is short-term or long-term, and the DCMS does not define the length of term during which an object may be loaned. In the case of loans made by the national museums, that is a matter for the trustees of those institutions. The granting of an export licence is not in any way influenced by whether the loan involves a payment to the body which lends the item. Access is one factor that will be taken into account by the trustees in making their decision on a potential loan.
The noble Baroness referred to the answer given by my noble friend Lady Blackstone to the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, just before Christmas. I seek to emphasise that the answer was not misleading. The Royal Armouries have informed the Government that the Owsley Brown Frazier Historical Arms Museum is prepared to fund both the capital and operating costs of the project in perpetuity. Therefore, the loan will take place on the basis that the full capital and operating costs of the project will be paid for by the Frazier Arms Museum. The Armouries aim to use the presence of such a loan in the United States to generate fund-raising revenue, at no expense to the taxpayer,
772
through sponsorship, membership programmes and retailing. Therefore, the only relevance to this Bill is the granting of a temporary export licence for the loan.
The noble Baroness also referred to the Elgin Marbles. I see in my briefing notes that in brackets they are also referred to as the "Parthenon Sculptures". I shall refer to them as that. In the case of the British Museum, the trustees are similarly bound by their governing legislation—that is, the British Museum Act 1963. That legislation prohibits any de-accessioning of items within their collection, except in very restricted circumstances. But it does permit the lending of objects within the collection for public exhibition, subject to their condition and having regard, inter alia, to any risks to which the items are likely to be exposed. It is for the trustees of the British Museum to decide whether the Parthenon Sculptures, or Elgin Marbles, are offered on loan anywhere else. It is not a matter for the Government. This is certainly a decision that will be taken by trustees, and I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no question of pressure being applied.
Lord Burnham: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he realise that there was an anomaly in what he said? He referred to the funding of the armoury in perpetuity by the Americans but, on the other hand, he stated that the loan was for a specified and limited period, which is what is contained in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand that the concept of "in perpetuity" signifies that the period of the loan is the period during which the Americans will be responsible for paying the costs. That is the perpetuity.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank my noble friend Lord Burnham for his late intervention. I shall want to consider that matter a little more carefully. I was certainly under the impression that a three-year licence commonly applied in cases such as that pertaining to the Royal Armouries. The matter of -in perpetuity" raises another issue which I shall need to consider further between now and Report.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for obtaining from the Government the very clear explanation that removal on any terms is the rule that governs whether or not the Government impose export controls. I believe that that is a reassurance to us all.
I was also grateful to the Minister for clearly putting on the record today in response to my amendment the matter of open licences and how the two categories of those licences will operate. I am of course aware that there were references to that matter in the consultation document. But it was most helpful to have the issue explained so clearly today. The Minister also explained the processes that are followed in respect of decision-making in relation to loans.
I am grateful, too, for the Government's clarification of their position in relation to the Royal Armouries and, indeed, the Elgin Marbles. I am relieved to hear the Government state so clearly that it is a matter for the trustees alone to make that decision.

773
My noble friend Lord Brooke raised an interesting historical footnote with regard to the Elgin Marbles. I hope that we now have politicians who are as discreet in their comments as he has been and that consequently the Elgin Marbles will remain in this country "in perpetuity", which I believe is the right phrase to use today. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert "and whether or not they form the whole or part of an object of cultural interest".
The noble Baroness said: Again, this is a probing amendment and, on this occasion, it is to ask the Government whether they consider that vehicles, vessels and aircraft of an historical nature could fall within this category. I put down this amendment long before the Government's drastic redrafting of the schedule by the amendments which they tabled this week.
Quite simply, the question is: are those objects covered by this clause or are they covered only by the order-making power in paragraph 8 of the schedule as currently drafted? I am aware that the chassis of a De Lorean car—or perhaps parts of Concorde—could be considered to be an item of cultural interest now or in the future. Do they fall within this category or do they come under some other type of heading? Would they be governed by the rules in the dummy cultural order or not?
If not, that would of course bring cultural historical objects which are less than 50 years old within export control. That would address some of the issues raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Certainly the impression that I get from the amendments tabled by the Government this week is that they intend that items under 50 years old should be covered. From the Minister's earlier answer, I anticipate that we should be able to obtain that reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. In doing so, I want to expand a little on the general issue of the powers of the Secretary of State to impose export controls in relation to the removal from the United Kingdom of objects of cultural interest, or cultural goods, including archaeological materials.
I also want to ask the noble Lord some questions about the existing working of the current system in that regard. It is well known that for many years the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art has worked consistently and successfully to retain in the United Kingdom, with the application of the Waverley criteria, works of art of outstanding national importance.
However, as I pointed out in the debate in this House on the reviewing committee's last annual report, members of that committee have not turned their minds to another issue which might be considered
774
part of the wider remit; namely, the prevention of the export from this country of cultural goods originating in other European Community states and covered by the legislation in such states protecting national treasures, despite the obligation to do so under United Kingdom law in accordance with the relevant EC regulation. That regulation appeared at that time under the signature of my noble friend, now Lord Waldegrave. I want to ask the noble Lord whether since 1992 the Secretary of State has ever refused an export licence on such grounds as he might be expected to do under Article 2 of that regulation.
I admit that I should perhaps have chosen a different amendment under which to ask this question as I recognise that my query refers not only to vehicles and vessels. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer my question, even though I now realise that the matter would have been better raised under Amendment No. 2. I hope that the House and the noble Lord will forgive me on that point.
In general, these are matters that have been discussed by the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, set up by the former Minister with responsibility for the arts under the chairmanship of Professor Norman Palmer. I am a member of that panel. The Government have made real progress on those issues by announcing their intention of ratifying the 1970 UNESCO convention and of stating their intention to introduce a new criminal offence of,
"dishonestly to import, deal in or be in possession of any cultural object, knowing or believing that the object was stolen, or illegally excavated … contrary to local law".—[Official Report, 25/1/02; col. WA 222.]
But in the context of the Bill, of existing legislation since 1939 and specifically of the amendment that we are discussing, surely it must follow that such illicit cultural objects would be refused an export licence if such a licence were sought.
Even more worrying are cultural objects originating within the United Kingdom that are the subject of illicit trade. That relates to a comment that was made from the Cross Benches. Must the safeguarding provisions apply only to objects entering this country from overseas? Should not Britain's own heritage also be protected?
The Minister with responsibility for the arts, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, announced on 22nd January that she had placed a temporary ban on the export of a pair of late Bronze Age gold hair rings, stated by the reviewing committee,
"to be of outstanding significance … for the understanding of the technical artistry of the insular Late Bronze Age gold-workers".
But the announcement and the press release make no mention of the disquieting circumstance that the "find spot" of those gold rings is not known, and in particular that so far as has been established they have never been reported to a coroner as falling, at the time of their discovery, within the earlier legislation relating to treasure trove, subsequently amended by the Treasure Act 1996. How could an export permit properly be granted at all to cultural objects which, in contravention of the law—a law that has been in operation for several centuries—have not been

775
reported to the proper authorities as a find of treasure or, more exactly, if found before 1996, as a find that a coroner's inquest might adjudge to be treasure? To fail to do so was and is a criminal offence.
It may apparently be the case that those objects were later publicly sold in one of Britain's auction houses, but surely public sale does not in itself give legal title to the purchaser when the possessor was not in fact the legal owner of the goods. Surely we should apply to treasures from the soil of Britain the same protective safeguards which, under the EC regulation, we apply to treasures from other EC countries. Can the noble Lord explain how, even after a temporary ban, the Secretary of State could possibly award an export licence for national treasures whose discovery had, contrary to law, been concealed by the finder and whose ownership had not been openly determined by a coroner's inquest?
In supporting the amendment I seek an assurance from the noble Lord. which I hope he may well be minded to give, that the working of the export licensing system will indeed urgently be reviewed in order to prevent or at least to diminish the continuing export of illicit antiquities from this country. I ask for his assurance also that those antiquities that are protected by our own very modest United Kingdom antiquities legislation will be properly protected within the framework re-defined by the Export Control Bill and that the Secretary of State will no longer receive or indeed heed advice to grant an export licence, whether or not following a temporary ban, for antiquities that have, beyond reasonable doubt, been purloined and concealed following their discovery, in contravention of United Kingdom law.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government believe that Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary because, quite apart from the fact that it is somewhat difficult to think of an example where a vehicle, vessel or aircraft forms part of a cultural object, where a vehicle, vessel or aircraft meets the definition of a "cultural object" set out in the dummy draft order it will be subject to export controls under the Bill. A First World War tank or a Gypsy Moth plane in working order, for example, would be covered by the export controls, not only because they meet the definition of cultural objects in the dummy draft order, but they may also be subject to controls in respect of strategic goods.
If an application for a licence for such an object were made to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and such an object were thought to be capable of having a relevant consequence in relation to the activities listed in the table referred to in the schedule, the DCMS would inform the DTI and the DTI would consider whether a licence were required in respect of an export for strategic goods.
We believe that rather than having the effect of clarifying subsection (6), the amendment could introduce an ambiguity into the Bill that is undesirable. There is no need to add the proposed wording for the avoidance of doubt because subsection (6) is quite clear.
776
I recognise that other issues have been brought into the discussion on this amendment. I shall do my best to respond to the noble Lord and if he Finds my replies somewhat inadequate I am sure that we shall be able to engage in correspondence with him, or I shall ensure that the Minister or the Secretary of State does so. As the noble Lord is a member of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, he will be aware of the panel's recommendation in its report of December 2000 that a new criminal offence of dealing in illicit cultural property should be defined. The Secretary of State has accepted that proposal and is actively seeking an opportunity to include such an offence within future legislation.
The new criminal offence that we would seek to cover in legislation is,
"to the extent it is not covered by existing criminal law, it be a criminal offence dishonestly to import, deal in or be in possession of any cultural object, knowing or believing that the object was stolen, or illegally excavated, or removed from any monument or wreck contrary to local law-.—[Official Report, 25/1/02; col. WA 222.]
The noble Lord will also be aware that, on the basis of any refusal of an export licence by the Secretary of State, the Government have adopted into UK law the EU Council directive 93/7 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state. The practice is to examine routinely all applications for export licences to determine whether an item has legally left the country of origin. Therefore, the basis for a successful application would be an ability to ensure that such objects in no way fell into the category of having been illegally removed.
Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness that, in this respect, we have had the advantage of clarifying some of the issues relating to the Bill. We are absolutely sure that the Bill, as it stands, is quite clear on those issues with regard to cultural artefacts and their protection under the Bill. I hope that I have explained the way in which the system will work in order to assuage any doubts that the noble Baroness may have.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank my noble friend Lord Renfrew for introducing a more wide-ranging aspect to the amendment and for making a vital point. I pay tribute to his professional expertise and the expertise that he has exercised as a member of the Palmer committee, if I can so refer to it. I am grateful to the Minister for putting his explanation so clearly on the record. I shall consider it carefully before Report stage to see whether I need to elicit further information on Report.
I am grateful to the Minister for referring to objects that could be considered as cultural objects that will be covered by the Bill only Wit is thought that the relevant consequences definition applies to them and they fall within that category. One of the underlying questions that I have been trying to sort out in my mind is what parts of the Bill are specially designed to catch only cultural objects—if we can define a cultural object—as opposed to which parts of the Bill relate to all other

777
matters, such as military objects, and which may, by design or default, trap within those definitions cultural objects that would sit uncomfortably within them.
We are getting to a helpful stage. The Government are making it clear which genuine cultural objects, which will not be adapted for military use, would not fall within those export controls that we on this side of the House feel should not be applied to them. So we are moving to a very helpful outcome on the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Transfer controls]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert"; or
( ) by a United Kingdom person onto internet, intranet or extranet, or similar information sharing equipment, whereby the technology may be downloaded outside the United Kingdom."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 10. The amendments affect Clause 2 which relates to the transfer of technology which Members of the Committee agree is an essential ingredient in the control of exports of arms and similar materials. The group of amendments seeks to make practical and necessary improvements to Clause 2 as at present drafted.
I deal first with Amendment No. 6. Clause 2(2) defines the geographic means of transferring technology. It gives four methods. Subsection 2(a) is from within to outside the United Kingdom; Subsection 2(b) is from outside to outside; Subsection 2(c) is between persons in the UK; and 2(d) is from outside to inside. But this list leaves one glaring omission. It overlooks the greatest advance in methods of communication since the invention of the radio; what is loosely called "the Internet".
I am sure that I do not have to remind your Lordships of instances where information about making terrorist weapons, including low tech "dirty" atomic bombs, have been posted on the Internet by malicious persons in pursuit of a variety of agendas. Information may be posted on web sites and the author may claim that he is not communicating it to anyone.
In any case, it is impossible, or, at the very least difficult, to say whether anyone who picks it up is inside or outside the United Kingdom, so under which subsection would a prosecution be framed? Although there is a means of determining the number of "hits" on a site, it would be extremely difficult for Customs and Excise to prove that anyone actually picked it up at all.
Why should we make it difficult for the enforcement authorities to prove whether anyone has received the transfer of technology? It should be the act of placing the information in a medium where it can be picked up by anyone, anywhere in the world which should be the offence.
The "intranet" is the communication of data on web sites within one internal network, such as the PVND system that many of us use within this building. "Extranet" is the means of assessing that internal network by authorised persons from outside the building, which we are also supposed to be able to do; but, only with enormous difficulty in my own case.
Possibly, and the Minister may tell us, Internet, intranet and extranet may all be caught by one or other of the present four paragraphs. However, the essential ingredient of subsection (2) is that it relates to transfer from a person to another person. The amendment covers the transfer of technology in a totally disembodied way from one computer to another.
Subsection (6) refers to a transfer "by any means". That, too, may be seen to cover electronic transfer or even mental telepathy. In other words, even if the problem is covered, the amendment, by specifically spelling out electronic transfer, closes a possible loophole for ingenious lawyers to attempt to exploit. It is belt and braces, if I may put it that way.
I turn to Amendment No. 8 which modifies the restriction on the transfer of technology within a company or group. At the moment the wording of the clause not only prevents the transfer of technology between connected companies—between, say, a United Kingdom company and its overseas subsidiary—but also even under subsection (2)(c) between one UK company and its United Kingdom subsidiary. No less important is the transfer of information between, say, two research establishments, two universities engaged on the same project or even two companies engaged on a joint manufacturing project, any of which may be called a group.
Without some modification of the shotgun effect of this clause, a whole swathe of ordinary activities will require licensing, with consequential cost, delay and possible loss of business. For a Government who claim to be intent on the removal of red tape, I found the arguments which were advanced against this amendment in the other place unconvincing. I trust that the Government, having had three months to consider the matter, might consider accepting the amendment.
Finally, I come to Amendment No. 10. It is a probing amendment which I may have to pursue at a later stage, obviously depending on the answer that the Minister is able to give. Like my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury, I really do not understand the extent of this subsection. Stripping out the intermediate words, subsection (6) reads,
"'technology' means information … capable of use in connection with … an activity of any other kind whatsoever".
My honourable friend suggested, rather picturesquely, that it could include pencil sharpeners, garlic presses and cricket bats. I should not have thought of those
examples, but there they are. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State dismissed his fears by saying,
"I assure the hon. Member … that controls may be imposed on classes of technology only when their export or transfer from the UK could threaten one or more of the consequences in the schedule".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 16/10/01; col. 92.]
The Minister said that the need for this exceedingly wide clause was to cover new and, as yet, uninvented technologies. The clause is therefore intended to give the Government yet another blank cheque, covering unforeseen events and uninvented technologies. My honourable friend withdrew his amendment before the Committee of the other place, saying that he had a feeling that it would re-emerge before your Lordships. He was right. Cricket bats may indeed have a dual use, one of which could be as a weapon. But I am not in the business of speculating precisely what technologies may be caught by this exceedingly wide clause.
What we do not want to see is a provision which means whatever the Government, or, more likely an official in the enforcement authority, decides that it means. If the Government's intention is to ensure that the industrial or commercial activities or any other activity are not defined by the word "whatsoever", and if the Government mean activities which may be within the ambit of paragraphs 2, 3, or 4(2) of the table, then why do they not specifically say so and give up this sweeping piece of drafting? I was tempted to propose that amendment myself. However, I thought that I would give the Government a real opportunity to convince me that I was wrong.
If the Minister is going to invite me to withdraw the amendment, I trust that he will undertake to produce some serious and more specific re-drafting before the next stage. I beg to move.
Lord Burnham: I rise to support my noble friend, and in particular what she said about Amendment No. 8; although I would say to her that I believe that the matter of cricket bats falls more under the cultural part rather than the defence part of the Bill.
This legislation takes little or no account of the globalisation of the defence industry and of the increasingly multi-national character of defence companies. As my noble friend said, the provisions of the Bill do not recognise the commercial realities of the defence industry. Many such companies have research and development sections and manufacturing units in different countries. It would severely handicap the United Kingdom's defence industry if international companies such as BAe Systems were forced to apply for export licences every time they wanted to transfer data between facilities in different countries. The Government must consider the possibility, which the amendment would provide, of granting global licences valid for enl ire projects, or some way to ensure that the new regulations do not adversely affect UK competitiveness.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: Further to that observation, there is another dimension to the amendment that requires consideration. With the internationalisation of the
780
defence industry, the increasing use of licensed production overseas means that companies or groups could include subsidiary organisations in countries with weak export control systems. If the Bill does not regulate the transfer of technology between defence companies and their subsidiaries, those companies with an interest in subverting the controls could do so simply by setting up sister companies in the United Kingdom, exporting blueprints for assembly in such countries, and subsequently exporting with minimal controls.
We are obviously not discussing more responsible industry in the defence sphere, but in legislation we must deal with those who are less responsible—they are the whole problem—and the damage that they can do. From that standpoint, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to stand firm.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I should like to ask one question relating to the amendment and the use of the word "technology". It is not clear that it explicitly refers to biological materials. Would an animal—for instance a modified animal, the result of genetic engineering—come under the heading of "technology"? That is not a trivial point: it would apply equally to biological warfare. It would apply to germ material, and so on. I should like the Minister's assurance that living things—for instance. a cloned sheep, which might be of enormous commercial or other significance—and biological materials are fully covered under the terminology of "technology".
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: May I deal with Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 10 together? All three relate to the Government's ability to control transfers of technology under Clause 2. While understanding the concern that there should be no loopholes in the new transfer controls, and indeed that they should not unduly burden industry, the Government do not believe that the amendments would improve the Bill. Each amendment raises particular issues and I shall address them in turn.
Amendment No. 6 would specifically provide that the Government had the power to impose controls on the publishing of technology on websites. The amendment is unnecessary as the Bill as drafted already provides such a power where there is reason to believe that technology may be transferred abroad. Clause 2 defines a "transfer" as,
"a transfer by any means (or combination of means)".
That encompasses uploading material on to a website from where it could be accessed by others.
Clause 2(2)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may impose controls on transfers from within the UK to outside the UK. That would allow control of transfers to an Internet site outside the UK. Clause 2(2)(d) provides that controls may be imposed on transfers entirely within the UK where there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom. That would apply in the case of transfers to Internet sites based in the UK but accessible from outside the UK. Hence, transfers to websites or other electronic media cart be controlled under the Bill as drafted.
The new controls to be introduced under the Bill on electronic transfers of military technology will extend to transfers to and from intranet sites and in certain cases on the Internet. However, as is the case for our current controls on tangible transfers of military technology, any technology in the public domain will be excluded from that control. Clause 2 is included in the Bill specifically to cover the whole question of electronic transfer of technology, which is one of the great weaknesses of the current legislation. It was drafted to deal with the issue of electronic communication. Clearly, in today's world, the current situation in which only manuals or physical representations of technology are covered is inappropriate.
Amendment No. 8 is intended to ensure that transfers of technology within one company or group cannot be subject to control. The Government believe that having the power to control transfers of technology within one company is essential for the effective operation of our export control regime. I entirely agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd. If transfers within one company were to be excluded from control, an unscrupulous exporter or individual wishing to transfer sensitive technology could do so simply by setting up a company with offices overseas in a place with different and perhaps less stringent export controls than those of the UK. I am sure that the Committee will agree that such a situation would amount to an unacceptable loophole in our controls.
However, I am aware that there are concerns that controls on intangible technology transfers may be burdensome. I assure the Committee that that is why the Government intend to continue to make extensive use of open licensing, where appropriate, to avoid unnecessary burdens on business and government resources. For example, companies will be able to apply for open individual licences to cover intracompany transfers of technology or joint ventures with international partners.
I now turn to Amendment No. 10. First, technology as defined here is only that which falls under the categories in the schedule—essentially, military equipment or something with one of the relevant consequences. Unless one suggests that garlic crushers or cricket bats could be weapons of mass destruction or lead to regional instability, they would not be included in the definition. The definition would cover biological material if it had one of those relevant consequences—for example, if it could be used as a weapon of mass destruction, which is of course a very present issue.
Amendment No. 10 would remove paragraph (b) of Clause 2(6). The removal of that paragraph would limit the type of technology that could be controlled under the Bill to information capable of use in connection with the development, production or use of any goods or software. Any other type of information, no matter how serious its potential for misuse in the wrong hands, would be excluded from control. It is
clear that in a Bill such as this, which is an enabling Bill that we hope will have a long life, it would be wrong to take such a position.
While I understand the concern that the new controls on technology transfers should not unduly burden industry, the amendment would restrict the Government's capacity to control the transfer of sensitive technology or information that might be used to cause real harm in the hands of the wrong end-user. It must be borne in mind that what ultimately determines whether a particular kind of technology or piece of information should be subject to control is not the form that it takes, but whether it is subject to control as a consequence of an EC or other international obligation or whether it could be used to threaten one or more of the consequences set out in the schedule.
In that respect, it is important to appreciate that sensitive technology or information need not necessarily be associated with particular goods or software, let alone goods or software that are already subject to control, and therefore may not always be covered by the definition of "technology" given in paragraph (a) of clause 2(6). It might, for instance, support experimental work carried out prior to the actual development of goods or software—for example, in relation to new applications of cryptography—or relate simply to information connected with a particular activity that did not necessarily involve goods or software.
I remind the Committee that most of our controls on technology derive from EC law or from international control regimes such as the Wassenaar arrangement and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The lists of items controlled under EC regulation and the various international control regimes are regularly updated, as new types of technology emerge that are judged to pose a risk in the wrong hands. It is of vital importance that the UK should be immediately able to update our list of items subject to control, where that is required under our EC or international obligations.
Paragraph (b) is needed because none of us can be confident that the relatively conventional definitions of technology given in paragraph (a) of Clause 2(6) will continue to be sufficient to allow the Government to control every kind of technology that we may be required by international obligation to control or whose transfer could lead to one of the relevant consequences set out in the schedule. We must have legislation that will stand the test of time and not be rendered quickly out of date by the emergence of new technological methods and processes that do not relate clearly to particular items of equipment or software. In particular, we cannot be in a position in which new primary legislation must be passed in the UK to enable us to follow our EU and international partners in imposing new controls on technology, simply because the items to be controlled are not covered, or not fully covered, by the definition given in paragraph (a) of Clause 2(6).
It is important to remember, however, that paragraph (b) does not give the Government an open-ended power to control all kinds of technology. Controls can be imposed only on military goods and technology, on other goods or technology that are controlled as a result of our EC and other international obligations and on classes of technology or goods whose transfer or export from the UK could threaten one or more of the damaging consequences set out in the schedule. In view of the reasons and arguments that I have given, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Burnham: On the assumption that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment—she may not—will the Minister, before Report, consider some definition of the difference between the kind of dodgy company mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd and BAe Systems? As it stands, those two extremes are being treated in the same manner. That is not reasonable.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We are talking about the legislation, which covers the action that the Secretary of State cart take. When it comes to open licences for individual companies, the reputation of the company is the sort of factor that would be taken into account in deciding whether open licences would be given. That would distinguish between different companies; it need not be taken account of in the legislation. We must have the power to stop technology moving within a company, which would drive a hole in the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer to the amendments. As far as concerns Amendment No. 6, I shall read the record carefully, but it seems that it has been covered as I would have wanted. I shall make sure of that, as the Minister would expect me to.
With regard to Amendment No. 8, I was pleased to hear the Government say that they did not want to put extra burdens on business and suggest open licensing, where appropriate. Again, I shall look at that response carefully. With regard to Amendment No. 10, I did not, of course, mention garlic presses, bats or whatever. They could never be considered weapons of mass destruction. Under the circumstances, the Minister's answer to Amendment No. 10 is probably good.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) For the avoidance of doubt, the uses to which technology may be put may include its display as part of, or as the whole of, an object of cultural interest."
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 11.
This is a typical probing amendment. One must table amendments that are exactly the opposite of what one hopes to achieve in order simply to elicit a debate. I listened with interest to what the Minister just said about the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. He has already gone a long way to reassure me that the fears that prompted the amendments are unfounded. However, there are certain issues relating to cultural matters that I must discuss today.
In order to close the loophole that the Minister pointed out earlier with regard to electronic communication, the Government have set out a definition not only of transfer controls, but of technology. I tabled the amendments simply to ask the Government whether they anticipated that cultural objects could ever fall within the scope of Clause 2 and, if so, in what way. I hope, of course, that the Minister will assure me that they could not fall within Clause 2.
The Minister has already said that the Bill gives the Government no open-ended power to control technology. He made that point clearly and gave examples of limitations. In a helpful response to the intervention of my noble friend Lord Burnham, the Minister said that there was a second stage at which the Secretary of State, in deciding whether an export licence—or which kind of licence—would be issued, would take into account the reputation and the standing of the person applying for the export licence.
It would seem strange, in normal circumstances, to wonder whether cultural objects could fall within the remit of Clause 2, but it can be argued that not only can technology today produce an object of cultural interest, it can be integral to it. Cultural objects today often reflect our obsession with technology. One need think only of some of the recent Turner exhibits and some of the exhibits at Tate Modern to understand that. The problem is that some of the components of those exhibits are, in themselves, so sophisticated in driving computer software and hardware that they would be, in some cases, capable of adaptation for military use. It is just a question of what level of military use.
That occurred to me as a result of a visit that I made last summer while on a family holiday in the Cheshire area to the Hack Green museum. It is a very small museum that advertises itself as a secret nuclear bunker, which is rather a contradiction in teens. It was until relatively recently, of course, an establishment that would have been used as a regional seat of government in the event of nuclear war. The exhibits demonstrate the uses to which radar was and is put, and there are parts—not necessarily all working parts, although some are—of technical equipment on display. Some exhibits are from as long ago as the Second World War—they even pre-date me—and some more recent, from the Blue Streak era. If such items were sold or loaned overseas, would they fall foul of Clause 2, rather than another part of the Bill'? I hope that the Minister will say no.
Does the Minister have any news of the next stage of development reached by Culture Online? Did the Department of Trade and Industry and the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport take that into account when drafting the Bill? I have in mind, of course, Clause 26(1)(a)(i)—as one always does—of the Culture and Recreation Bill which was to be used, just a year ago this month, to establish Culture Online. That clause states that Culture Online shall achieve its objectives by creating and developing, or promoting the creation and development of material in electronic form (including material which is itself of cultural interest) to the general public.
So, in that Bill, the Government recognised that electronic material could be of cultural interest. They are aware that it could be available on the Internet. I seek a reassurance from the Minister that Clause 2 is not drafted so widely that something as innocent—I hope—as Culture Online is intended to be, could fall foul of it. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I rise to support my noble friend and to ask the Minister for clarification. I am back on the issue of objects of cultural interest but I am thinking of the history of technology and the sort of materials exhibited in the Science Museum.
It is not clear to me that under existing provisions objects of technological interest which are of relatively recent date are adequately protected. It may be the case, for instance, that an Enigma machine would be; I am not certain about that. But that would now be more than 50 years old. We wish to protect the export of many other objects of technical interest. I am thinking more in the cultural sense than of technology transfer. I am not talking about technology as a new process. My noble friend's amendment deals with objects as well as with processes.
I have with me the categories of cultural objects in the annex to the EC regulations to which reference has been made on which the provisions operating under UK law are based. I do not find any provisions relating clearly to the history of technology. It is not clear how some important developments are protected, for instance, in the field of biochemistry; satellite indications, if we were well developed in the field of satellite work in this country; synthetic textiles where clearly we were and are; or early radio carbon dating apparatus. How are those currently protected?
I am talking in the historical sense. But technology as recent as less than 50 years ago can be of significance. Those are matters which should be protected against automatic and unthinking export as other art work would be. I shall be grateful for advice from the Minister on that issue.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness indicated, these are probing amendments. I recognise her point on the difficulty of tabling amendments which achieve potentially the exact opposite of the thinking behind them. However, she seems in these amendments to have displayed the absolute antithesis of the Nazi, Goebbels, who, every time he heard the word "culture", would reach for his gun. It seems to me that whenever we consider weapons of mass destruction the noble Baroness searches for culture.
786
My noble friend has already indicated the objective behind this clause, which is to ensure that we comply with European Union Joint Action of 2000 concerning the control of support which might be provided for programmes creating weapons of mass destruction.
We do not see the way in which technology is used in the context of this clause applying to cultural objects. I recognise the point made by the noble Lord. But technology has a history and we all learn from history. Everything that is utilised today derives from breakthroughs in the past. But he too will recognise that we are able to draw a clear distinction between scientific instruments and illustrations of scientific history of cultural advantage, which we want to ensure belong to the world-wide knowledge of science, and our capacity under this clause to restrict the transfer of technologies which would bring in the possibility of other, potentially hostile, societies developing weapons of mass destruction.
I can assure the noble Baroness that the clause seeks, as my noble friend indicated, to control the technology which, by electronic means or military technology, could assist the development of weapons of war. I can assure the noble Baroness that nothing in the framework of this clause impacts upon the cultural dimension she outlined.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those assurances. I know in the political world it is difficult for politicians to say, "Never". But his final words are perhaps the closest to "never" we will get. For that I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Technical assistance controls]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert "or foreign military assistance or assistance with any serious criminal activity anywhere"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 59 and 57, which are consequential amendments, and finally to Amendment No. 14.
Clause 3 deals with the export of technical assistance of any description. That is one of the problems with which the Bill is intended to deal. However, two other problems arise with which we should all be concerned. The first is that of giving foreign military assistance, which I defined in Amendment No. 59 from what appears in Clause 10. It does not relate to personal services as a mercenary in some foreign army. That is already governed by the Foreign Enlistment Act under which, I understand, no prosecution has ever taken place despite, for example, the large number of Britons who went to fight in the Spanish Civil War and the large numbers who fought as mercenaries in the Congo and other African
conflicts. Incidentally, that Act may have been infringed by the misguided British subjects who went off to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban.
If it is wrong and prohibited, as we all agree, to supply technical assistance in the form of plans and drawings of weapons, aircraft and missiles, computer software and so forth, then it is no less important to prohibit the supply to what we have termed "rogue states" or to rebels against a lawful government in the form of training, supplying personnel, finance and intelligence, procuring equipment and military medical services.
The definition of "foreign military assistance" is fully and comprehensively set out in Amendment No. 59. "Equipment" may already be covered by other provisions in the Bill, but I included it for the sake of completeness. Included in the definition of "foreign military assistance" contained in Amendment No. 59 is a reference to "armed conflict". That is defined in Amendment No. 57. So the phrase is defined in the Bill before it is actually used. I apologise to the Committee for putting the cart before the horse in this way, but that is due to the alphabet since "a" for "armed conflict" comes before "f" for "foreign military assistance".
There is an additional phrase in Amendment No. 12 on which I have not yet touched. I want the Secretary of State to have the power to ban technical assistance for any serious criminal activity anywhere. I have not defined "serious criminal activity" as I am confident that any Secretary of State, prosecutor or judge would be able to recognise it when they saw it. It is anomalous that the Secretary of State will have power to impose technical assistance controls on material to be exported to foreign states but is unable to inhibit the sharing of technology between criminal gangs who now operate across borders and between continents.
Offhand I can suggest that the technology might include recipes for new addictive drugs, methods of conducting computer crime and the manufacture of weapons for use by criminals and terrorists. Doubtless there are many other fields of criminal activity that benefit from the sharing of information between criminals, but even if I could think of any I should not like to be giving ideas to the criminal fraternity. As far as I know, there is no specific statutory provision which deals with that problem. If I am wrong, I am very happy to be corrected.
We do not want to have to rely on the common law crime of conspiracy, especially as conspiracy to commit an offence abroad may not be a crime in Britain. Adding this provision to the Bill will give the Government an extra weapon in the war against international crime and terrorism.
It is well within the purposes of the Bill as defined in the schedule, which, I remind the Committee, includes obligations to the EU, or under any other international obligation, and to protect friendly states and stability in any country. Clearly, international crime has a destabilising effect, wherever it conducts its activities.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 14. Clause 3(7) provides extra-territorial jurisdiction over activities covered by the Bill. Given the nature of the Bill and the wrongs it seeks to prevent, I do not believe that there can be any objection to that, except in one respect, which the amendment intends to rectify.
Subsection (7) permits the Secretary of State to impose controls on acts done outside the United Kingdom—which, as I said, is fair enough—under the direction of someone who is, or is acting under the control of, what is called a "United Kingdom person", which is very clearly defined in the Bill. But it applies to the activities of any person—or, as the Bill states. "a person"—without restriction, which means that the Government are seeking jurisdiction over foreigners who have no physical connection with the United Kingdom except that a UK person is giving them instructions. For example, an American subject living and working in the United States, who has never- set foot in the United Kingdom but who is working either for a British company or even an American company with a British manager, will find himself caught by the provisions of the subsection.
I should like to remind the Committee of the outrage felt at the so-called Helms-Burton Act passed by the United States Senate, which tried to impose sanctions on United Kingdom trade with Cuba. Certainly we should not seek to impose our laws, however righteous, on foreigners or persons doing acts totally outside our territorial jurisdiction.
I am sure that the Government did not intend any such piece of imperialism. I trust that they will accept this constructive amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: I have a great deal of sympathy with the intentions behind the noble Baroness's amendment. However, do we really want to add to this quite complex piece of primary and secondary legislation by attempting to deal with the very wide issues raised by the question of mercenaries? The amendment goes further in its implications than was contemplated under the Bill, on which there has been significant and extensive consultation.
Looking back into political history, I believe that in 2000 the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, promised a Green Paper on mercenary activities which would, presumably, lead to legislation. We have not yet seen that Green Paper, but would not that be a better way of dealing with the noble Baroness's concerns? If the Government were to produce that Green Paper, we could then have an orderly discussion and consultation on what legislation should flow from it. But such legislation should be kept out of this Bill.
Lord Judd: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the case made, with her usual reasonableness, by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I always find her reasonableness attractive, but when she speaks with real feeling about an issue it is particularly effective.
This crucially important issue needs to he urgently addressed, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that it is a large and complex area which

789
probably deserves attention in specific legislation. However, I look to my noble friend the Minister for an assurance that the Green Paper, to which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred, will be published without further delay. We can then move on to convincing legislation as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Hylton: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on her ingenuity in producing definitions of both "armed conflict" and "foreign military assistance". As far as I know, the South African Parliament is the only one in the world which has legislation already on its statute book concerning the activities of mercenaries.
It is possible to take many different views of such activities. Some will see them simply and solely as deriving profit from other people's conflicts. On the other hand, a case can sometimes be made out for protecting valuable assets, such as oil and diamonds, from falling into illegal and undesirable hands.
There is a good deal to be said in different directions, but meanwhile—and recognising the point of view of those who said that it would be premature to legislate on this issue now—I hope that the Government will take the amendments seriously and reflect on them deeply.
Lord Burnham: I support the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Judd, in their request for the publication of the Green Paper, which was originally promised by the Government in November 2000. Earlier today, your Lordships were involved in a discussion about "soon" and "shortly". It would be helpful if we could find out whether the Green Paper will be published "soon" or only "shortly".
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggested that we are widening the subject by bringing in the question of mercenaries. I do not think it can be avoided. In another place, my honourable friends attempted to find a system whereby private military companies could be regulated and renegade mercenary activity banned. Properly licensed private military companies conduct operations when armed forces are unable to do so and their work can be very valuable.
The Government refused to accept the amendments in another place. Initially, Nigel Griffiths, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry, stated that he did not believe such change was necessary. When pressed, he conceded that control of mercenary activity was necessary but that the Export Control Bill was not the appropriate piece of legislation in which to lay down such controls. He urged my honourable friends to see what the Green Paper proposes, but as the Green Paper has not been published we are going round in circles.
The Government have recognised for some years that there is a problem with the regulation of mercenary activity directed from the UK, but they
790
have done nothing about it. In 1998, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Tony Lloyd, stated:
"We have no plans at present to sign and ratify the International Convention against Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. We have doubts concerning its legal enforceability in the United Kingdom. We are looking at options for national domestic regulation of military companies".—[Official Report. Commons, 15/6/98; col. 16W.]
With what we have seen of the recruitment of mercenaries for the Taliban and other renegade movements, it is essential that we get some kind of regulation of these activities. This Bill seems a very appropriate place to do so.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I wholly understand the motivation of my noble friend on the Front Bench in bringing forward these amendments. Sympathy for them has been expressed in different parts of the House, but I, too, share misgivings as to whether they are sensible or appropriate in this Bill.
I have no Scottish blood but I am conscious that, down history, before the role of Engineer to the Empire became available to Scotsmen, serving in the armies of foreign potentates was an absolutely regular employment. In the 17th century, the then Haig of Bemersyde—an ancestor of the World War I commander—served as a mercenary in the army of Gustavus Adolphus.
In the 18th century, David Ogilvy, the advertising man who spent most of his life outside Scotland, told the story of Jamie Keith—who was in the pay of Frederick the Great and was given the responsibility of defending Prague against the Turks. The siege went badly for the defending army, but there was a day's armistice for the burial of the dead. Jamie Keith felt that out of all courtesy he should have a word with the Turkish commander. He approached him, in a somewhat bedraggled condition. The Turkish commander was sitting on a great black horse, he had a great black beard, was wearing a great black fur hat and a great black coat trimmed with fur, with a great black belt and great black boots. Only when Jamie Keith was within earshot of this remarkable figure did there emerge from the great black beard, in a Scottish accent, the words, "Have you had any news from Inverurie lately, Jamie?". So the tradition is a long one, and we might get into difficulties in terms of the wide-ranging series of possibilities that the wording provides were we to add it to every other matter dealt with in the Bill.
When the noble Lord, Lord Davies, responded to Amendment No. 5, he challenged my noble friends on the Front Bench on the subject of whether they could think of a cultural object which could be part of a cultural object, or a vehicle, or a vessel. My mind went back to the face that launched a thousand ships. An effective export policy that could have prevented not only the launch of a thousand ships but also a war that went on for several decades would have been very much to the good. That is an example of just how wide-ranging one can become when one extends the Bill further. Therefore, I join with those who believe that the matter might sensibly be dealt with elsewhere.

791
However, I want to hang all those remarks on a separate hook—I do not believe that we shall have a clause stand part debate—and ask the Minister to remind us what a "United Kingdom person" is. The term appears both in the wording of the Bill and in my noble friend's amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In responding, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 57 and 59.
The first part of this group of amendments seeks to introduce two new elements into the Bill. The first concerns "foreign military assistance", which is defined in Amendment No. 59. The second concerns,
"assistance with any serious criminal activity anywhere",
which is not defined, but is clearly very broad indeed. These amendments relate to the power to control the provision of technical assistance in Clause 3, and I welcome the opportunity to explain why the scope of that clause is as it is. Also in this group is Amendment No 14, concerning the applicability of controls to technical assistance provided overseas, and I shall address that point shortly.
First, perhaps I may address the amendments on foreign military assistance. The first point I should make is that Clause 3 is already wide-ranging. It allows the Government to impose controls on technical services which are broadly defined in subsection (2) as:
"services which are provided or used, or which are capable of being used. in connection with the development, production or use of any [controlled] goods or technology".
The broad power to control technical assistance is therefore based on goods and technology that may be subjected to export and transfer controls. Clause 3 will enable the Government to implement the EU joint action on technical assistance for weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes. It will also enable us to implement controls on technical assistance where that is required by the terms of international embargoes and to provide an appropriate penalty for related offences.
The power in Clause 3 is already a wide-ranging one but one that is clearly set within the context of an export control regime. The objective of the Bill is to provide a framework for controls on exports and related activities. That is why the application of' controls to technical assistance relates directly to the types of goods and technology to which export controls apply. Certainly, some aspects of the activities defined in the related amendment— Amendment No. 59—would fall within the scope of Clause 3, such as training in the use, for example, of military equipment. In addition, the powers on the transfer of technology under Clause 2 and on trade controls under Clause 4 would also be applicable to some aspects of the proposed amendment, such as on the procurement of equipment—mentioned under Amendment No. 59.
However, the amendment before us seeks to introduce a considerably broader power into the Bill, and to extend it far beyond export controls. Here, I take what may be the last opportunity in this debate to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord
792
Judd, that this takes us into entirely new ground which is not appropriate for this Bill. If we consider the definition of "foreign military assistance", it includes such matters as personnel, financial support and medical services. That takes us well outside the matters normally subject to control as part of the export control regime.
But the amendment goes even further than that. It includes,
"assistance with any serious criminal activity anywhere".
Although "serious criminal activity" is not defined, it would include a vast array of activities that fall well outside the framework of export controls. If the. Bill were to apply to serious criminal activity anywhere, it would become a general law and order measure. But as I have explained, the Bill before the Committee is an export control Bill. It would be wholly inappropriate to try to transform it into a general measure intended to control serious criminal activity anywhere in the world.
The question of regulating private military companies or "mercenary" activity, which is presumably one of the reasons behind the amendment, is a complex one. The issue will he addressed in a consultation paper being drafted by the Foreign Office which I understand is in its final stage of preparation. We have had a consistent policy for a long time on this matter and it will he announced shortly. We are not deviating from that policy tonight. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will inform Parliament shortly about the date of publication of the consultation paper. It would not be appropriate to use the Export Control Bill to tackle an issue for which it was never intended, and which is in any case being taken forward separately in the proposed consultation paper.
I now turn to Amendment No. 14. The effect of the amendment would be to create a loophole in the proposed new powers on the provision of technical assistance overseas. The amendment seeks to limit the Government's power over overseas acts of technical assistance to acts carried out only by United Kingdom persons. This amendment would make it possible for unscrupulous UK companies, or individuals wishing to profit from certain proscribed acts of technical assistance overseas, to evade controls introduced under the power by arranging for a foreign national to carry out the actual act on their behalf.
I should emphasise that the extra-territorial power provided by Clause 3(7) governs only the actions of UK persons. It does not allow controls to be introduced on non-UK persons for acts of technical assistance carried out overseas, but only on any UK person who either carries out such acts himself or who directs such acts to be carried out by others.
However, the proposed amendment would significantly undermine the effectiveness of the new control that we intend to introduce under Clause 3. I remind the Committee that the intended purpose of the new control, as set out in the dummy draft orders published last October, is to prevent the provision of any technical assistance overseas which the provider

793
knows, or has been informed by government, might assist a weapons of mass destruction programme or a related missile programme. This control will implement a European Union joint action agreed in June 2000, which commits all member states to enacting controls on the provision of technical assistance relating to weapons of mass destruction and missiles capable of their delivery.
Clause 3(7) has been framed to prevent the possibility arising that a UK person could knowingly provide such technical assistance through a foreign national abroad and yet remain free from prosecution. It must be emphasised that the controls which the Government have announced their intention to introduce under Clause 3 will be essentially prohibitive and will cover activities in which no business is likely to have a legitimate involvement, except in the most exceptional of circumstances.
The overriding consideration in devising the controls must therefore be to ensure that they cannot be avoided. That is why the Government believe that the power in Clause 3 must allow us to control activity that is organised or authorised by a UK person where that person does not himself carry out the act. Not to do so would, as I have said, give unscrupulous individuals a ready and obvious means of providing and profiting from such assistance with impunity, so long as they took care to arrange for a foreign national to carry out the work on their behalf.
In answer to the question about the definition of a "United Kingdom person", I believe that that is adequately defined in Clause 10, which says:
"'United Kingdom person' means a United Kingdom national, a Scottish partnership or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom".
For those reasons I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank all noble Lords who have given me unqualified or qualified support. That was very helpful. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for his very good history lesson, which was amusing and instructive. I also thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Trade controls]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 23, leave out "in relation to goods" and insert "and technological assistance controls in relation to goods and technical assistance"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Amendment No. 15 is a probing amendment intended to clear up an anomaly, or what I imagine is an inadvertent omission from the Bill.
Clause 3 deals with technical assistance and technical assistance controls, which are defined in subsection (2). However, the definitions are set out in two long sentences of 28 and 29 words respectively and the definition of "technical assistance" is rather unspecific.
Clause 4(2) sets out the definition of "trade controls" in clear and concise terms. Amendment No. 17 would carry that method of definition over to the definition of "technical assistance".
Having two different methods of defining two very similar activities could cause confusion, give rise to inconsistencies in administration and enforcement and hence provide a fertile field for evasion and a feast for lawyers. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are merely paving amendments to facilitate the principal one.
I acknowledge that if the Government accept the amendments, further consequential amendments to Clause 3 will be required. We can deal with those at a later stage if necessary.
I trust that the Government will accept this as a constructive amendment to clarify the Bill, not alter it. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. the amendments would provide the Secretary of State with the power to impose controls on acquisition, disposal and movement of technical services and with the power to control activities facilitating or connected with the acquisition, disposal, transfer or supply of those technical services.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter. It is very important that the issues should be covered. However, Clause 3 already allows the provision of technical assistance between overseas countries to be controlled. Circumstances in which technical assistance was acquired, disposed, moved, transferred or supplied between third countries overseas would include a UK national based abroad providing technical assistance in a different country overseas or a UK national in the UK or overseas arranging for another person to provide technical assistance in a third country. All those cases are covered by Clause 3(1) and (5) through which the Secretary of State can control the provision of technical assistance outside the UK or the making of arrangements under which another person provides technical assistance outside the UK. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. The issues are covered in Clause 3 and there is no need for them to be covered again in Clause 4, which deals with the different issue of trade controls. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I understand exactly what the Minister is saying. I was simply trying to point out that the definition of "trade controls" is much clearer than the definition of "technical assistance". I would have thought that the Minister might be pleased to agree to one of the amendments, which would not in any way alter the Bill but simply

795
make it easier to understand. He has time to think about that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withclraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line l3, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: The fact that this is a one-word amendment of a somewhat Delphic, and possibly even serpentine, nature does not mean that we believe that the point that it raises is unimportant, as the Minister will be aware. I suspect that this is the first of several occasions on which we shall not at present find accommodation with the Government on the Bill.
We welcome the clause, which is primarily aimed at the activities of arms brokers. The point of the amendment is to deal with the extent to which the extra-territorial activity of arms brokers should be regulated.
On Second Reading I referred your Lordships to the classic text book on the subject, which is John Le Carrè's novel The Night Manager, dealing with the activities of Mr Richard Roper. His activities show why we believe that the Government's provision does not go far enough.
The Government made clear in another place and in our discussions with the Minister before Committee stage that they intend to apply the provisions extra-territorially in three cases with regard to armaments: first when a transaction involves a transfer to an embargoed destination; secondly, in the case of a transfer of equipment used in torture; and, thirdly. in the case of long-range missiles. I understand that the Government propose that the extra-territorial nature of the prohibitions should extend only to those three categories.
My party believes that that does not go far enough. We base our argument on a number of factors, the first of which relates to six criteria we understand have often been laid down by the Home Office on whether it is appropriate for regulations and laws to apply extra-territorially. The first is that the offence is serious. One has only to look at the activities of Mr Richard Roper to realise how serious such offences can be. The second is that the witnesses and evidence are likely to be available in UK territory. That is probably a more difficult one in this case. The third is that there is general international consensus that conduct is reprehensible. The fourth is that the vulnerability of the victim makes it particularly important to be able to tackle the issue. The fifth is that creating the offence extra-territorially seems to be in the interests of the standing and reputation of the UK in the international community. The final criterion is that there is a danger that the offences concerned would not be justiciable.
It seems to us and to a number of the NGOs that have been involved in the discussions that at least five of those six criteria would apply to arms brokering transactions that go beyond the three categories that
the Minister will say the Government propose to deal with. Other noble Lords will want to come in on this issue.
The Government's major objection to taking the issue further is that it would result in the possibility of UK citizens who happen to live abroad committing an offence even though their actions were permissible under the laws of the country in which they were living. The Government's major argument is that persons might not be aware that particular activity requires an export licence in the United Kingdom—and in certain cases, they might have obtained a licence had they applied in the UK.
Under UK law, illegal arms broking carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. I find it difficult to believe that a UK citizen who is an arms broker living in Australia would not be aware of the seriousness of the offence in the UK and that it attracts up to 10 years' imprisonment. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to expect people who want to retain the rights attaching to UK citizenship to understand and respect British traditions and laws —- together with the principles on which UK society conducts its affairs. I urge the Government to think again and to extend territoriality.
Lord Judd: Earlier today, we heard in a Statement from the Home Office about citizenship that the Government will in future require people seeking British citizenship to take an oath of allegiance. At a time when we are taking such a step, it seems odd to suggest that it may not be necessary to require allegiance to something central to British commitment and law by persons who happen to be abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred to the Home Office criteria. It would not be at all difficult for a businessman to operate in a country where there was no UN embargo and, in that context, to supply weapons to terrorist organisations. I can think of specific examples but I am not sure that it is helpful to name countries. We can all think of countries where that is true.
Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee believe that it is imperative to stem the flow of weapons to terrorists. Some of us feel that the Bill provides a good opportunity for tightening up the arrangements. How can that be done if the Government do not have fall extra-territorial controls? I should like to hear my noble friend the Minister agree that extra-territorial controls would serve as a deterrent and prevent us just driving an illegitimate trade overseas.
There are sceptics, if not cynics, who are anxious to say that there is a lot of rhetoric in the campaign against terrorism but not much muscle. The Bill is potentially part of the muscle but it seems that it is not being applied.
The Prime Minister has just embarked upon his important mission in Africa, demonstrating our commitment to that continent. During my time as director of one of Britain's great humanitarian agencies, Oxfam, I became deeply perturbed that whereas we wanted to get on with long-term

797
development, 70 per cent of our work on the African continent was dealing with the consequences of conflict. If we really want to demonstrate our commitment to Africa, there can be few higher priorities than taking every possible step to demonstrate our determination to prevent the flow of arms—sponsored and facilitated by the merchants of death—that is aggravating the continuing disease of conflict on the African continent. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take seriously the way in which Amendment No. 18 has been moved.
Lord Joffe: The amendment must be considered in the context of the draft secondary legislation currently available in the form of dummy orders, and of the Government's general election manifesto, in which they undertook to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located.
That might have been the intention but the proposed legislation falls far short. If an arms broker who is a UK citizen negotiates a deal in the United Kingdom for the export of arms to warring factions in Nigeria, he will need a licence. The proposed legislation obligingly provides the option that if that individual crosses the Channel and negotiates the deal, he will no longer require a licence or be doing anything unlawful under UK legislation.
Mr Nigel Griffiths, the Parliamentary Secretary, pointed out in the other place that arms dealers are often resourceful, cunning and deceitful people—so they are hardly likely to ignore the option that I have described. They will negotiate outside the UK and—except with deals relating to embargoed countries, instruments of torture or long-range missiles—they will not be transgressing the law. This is clearly flawed legislation that fails to achieve its objectives. The loophole is so obvious and wide that it undermines much of what the Bill seeks to achieve. In The Times yesterday, Simon Jenkins wrote—although this may be going a bit far—that the Bill is so weak as to make it an offshore arms dealer's charter.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on the reasoning behind the creation of the loophole. Unless I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he spoke on Second Reading, the concern is that some UK arms brokers may not be aware, while transacting deals overseas, of the need to apply for a licence and could unwittingly break the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in British law. Moreover, the skilful ways in which many arms brokers manipulate jurisdictional and regulatory frameworks suggests that they pay very close attention to any laws that apply to them. While I would not for a moment suggest that arms brokers carrying on their business lawfully should not be fairly treated, it seems to me that in deciding what legislation is necessary to achieve the objectives, government should weigh up the potential harm to the innocent victims of trafficking if there are no controls against the potential harm to arms brokers if there are controls.
798
In other words, I suggest that it is necessary to weigh up the potential loss of life and the destruction of livelihoods among the innocent victims of brokers' arms against the possible harm to UK brokers operating overseas who may be unaware of the law. We should also remember that those innocent victims are usually powerless civilians and all too often women and children. However one looks at it, there can be no question but that all brokering deals by UK citizens, wherever based, must be licensed and judged on a case by case basis against the same consolidated criteria used to judge applications for direct exports from the UK.
The Government are to be admired for their manifesto commitment to control the activities of arms brokers wherever they are located. They are to be admired also for being instrumental in creating the European Union code of conduct on arms exports and for bringing forward the Export Control Bill. It is also very encouraging to all of us concerned about Africa that the Prime Minister is there at this very moment, visiting and exploring ways in which the UK can contribute to solving the problems that Africa faces. Against that background, the brokering loophole really does need to be closed; otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested, many people will conclude that the Government's rhetoric is not matched by their action.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to one of the Bill's provisions on brokering that may be easily misinterpreted. Long-range missiles are one of only three categories for which controls on overseas brokering are being imposed. Presumably, that category or purpose has been included largely to protect the developed countries rather than the developing ones; I say largely because there are exceptions. However, those controls contrast with the absence of controls on small arms which have already contributed to the death of literally millions of innocent civilians in Africa. I should be grateful if the Minister can explain why controlling the brokering of long-range missiles is more important than controlling the brokering of small arms. I support the amendment.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: We on these Benches support the amendment. Reference was made to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is sorry that he cannot be here this evening. I am sorry that he cannot be here this evening. In a moment, your Lordships may be sorry that he cannot be here this evening. However, there are other things that need to be done.
The Bill represents a step forward in approving legislation that is ethically responsible, transparent, publicly accountable and consistent with regard to exports in general and arms transfer in particular. That thinking has been part of the thinking of the General Synod since as long ago as November 1994 when we first debated the subject. However, we need to go further in encouraging what has often been called,
"a moral presumption generally against arms sales unless the case for a particular transfer can be made out".

799
As my noble friend the Bishop of Lichfield reminded us six years ago in a similar debate in this House,
"arms are not like other goods. Of course they are designed to defend but they are also designed to kill, threaten and injure".—[Official Report, 26/2/96; col. 1256.]
There is growing evidence that significant quantities of arms are entering the world's worst affected conflict and human rights crisis zones. They have been transferred so often by arms brokers. In the past, UK brokers have been free to arrange the delivery of weapons from countries outside the UK into conflict zones with impunity. Brokers have often taken advantage of the large number of cheap surplus weapons available in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union—coupled with the existence of weak export controls—to supply arms to groups and governments who violate human rights without needing to apply for an export licence. Evidence shows that some British dealers and freight companies have taken advantage of those opportunities and have participated in significant transfer of arms from third countries into war zones. I shall not name the countries, but your Lordships are aware of war zones in Africa where that has occurred.
Clause 4 gives the Government powers to introduce controls on the trade in controlled goods. Subsection (8) of the clause gives the Government the power to extend those controls extra-territorially to cover the activities of UK passport holders when they operate outside the UK. However, as currently worded, the provision does not oblige the Government to do so; hence, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has tabled Amendment No. 18.
It is encouraging that the Bill seeks to deal with the problems of arms brokering; that is good news. Under the new legislation, as I understand it, anyone in the UK who brokers the transfer of arms from one overseas destination to another will require a licence for their activities. However, it seems that the Government do not intend to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located. That seems to be a gap in the Bill. If I understand the Bill correctly, brokering conventional weapons to non-embargoed destinations will require a licence only when part of the deal takes place in the UK. Extra-territorial controls on brokering will be imposed on deals involving transfers to embargoed destinations, transfers of equipment used in torture and long-range missiles.
The purpose of Amendment No. 18 is therefore to ensure that when secondary legislation is introduced the Government extend the licensing regime to cover all off-shore brokering deals. If the legislation does not have that full extra-territorial reach, British citizens can evade the controls by simply stepping outside the country to conduct their arms brokering deals. As we know, the German controls suffer from that weakness. It has long been said that the German system,
"catches the good guys and the bad guys have moved to Cyprus".
It has also been said that,
"A child of five could work out an easy way to avoid the restrictions. You hop on the Eurostar and shake hands in Lille".
800
By contrast, US legislation controls brokering activity by US persons operating overseas, and US officials believe that that has a significant deterrent effect.
As we all know, there are precedents for the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction, such as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the Landmines Act 1998. The Government also consider offences of corruption committed abroad by UK nationals serious enough to warrant extra-territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, using the Home Office's own criteria—reference has already been made to them, so I need not do so again—-a very strong case can be made out in favour of full extraterritorial application of the proposed UK arms brokering regulation. That needs to be done.
As we understand from the Minister's reply to the debate on Second Reading, and as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has made clear, it seems that extraterritorial jurisdiction will apply only to trafficking and brokering to embargoed countries and in relation to torture equipment and long-range missiles. I ask your Lordships whether that is good enough. What about the fact that so many brokering deals involve conventional weapons that go to non-embargoed destinations? Surely those should be regarded as serious offences. As we have heard, the victims of brokered arms are often very vulnerable groups in society. I myself have seen people in parts of Africa who have been the victims of landmines, and I have seen them sitting in wheelchairs with no legs. Thai: is how the arms trade operates when it is not properly regulated.
Who can doubt that transferring machine guns and helicopters—which are not torture equipment or long-range missiles—to Al'Qaeda supporters in Pakistan and the Philippines should be prevented? Surely it must be. However, limiting extra-territorial controls only to embargoed destinations would not do that. The only way of doing it is to regulate all arms deals brokered by the UK. The aim is not to prohibit legitimate trade but to stop the illegitimate deals and introduce a general regulatory system.
I believe that I have said enough to show that at the end of the day it is not a question of whether or not we support the defence industry; of course we support the defence industry. The real challenge in front of us is not whether we support the defence industry but whether we are willing to see controls extra-territorially applied to regulate the activities of those who seek to avoid scrutiny and are not open to transparent scrutiny. The challenge is to devise a system in which we support the defence industry but do not support those who want to act illegitimately in the destruction of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. As the previous speaker said, if we do not achieve that tonight, we duck the challenge.
Lord Rea: The noble Lord, Lord Joffe. and the right reverend Prelate have eloquently said everything that I wanted to say. However, I ask my noble friend whether the Government intend only to apply extraterritorial controls on arms brokering to embargoed countries and to the three categories of weapons that

801
he mentioned. Having listened to two noble Lords who have just spoken, will he seriously reconsider expanding the range of weapons which are to be covered by the controls?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, explained clearly and carefully why he thought there was a need for this amendment. I believe that Members of the Committee around the Chamber have all supported it in one way or another. Given that the Government stated in their previous manifesto their intention of prohibiting illegal brokering, will the noble Lord explain one simple thing to me? When the Government drafted this Bill, why did they think that in subsection (8) of Clause 4 the word "may" was sufficient? Why did they not include the word "shall"?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Some people scoff at the Government's policy of moral foreign commitments and policies. I do not think that we on these Benches do and I do not think that any speaker tonight is apt to do that. Rather, the mood of the Committee as expressed in this mini-debate is clearly that the Government should stick to their guns and practise what they preach. If I may say so, the lead given by—
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall: Not in this debate.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I beg your pardon. If I may say so, the lead given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as regards relief of debt in the third world is precisely the kind of initiative that we should like to see paralleled by an amendment to this part of the Bill. Of course, it will be said that this will shackle our arms industry in a way that may give advantage to its competitors. That, indeed, may be the case, although I suspect that that will be far, far less the case than some may think. It would be interesting to hear the Minister say what view the Government take of that argument.
I go further and say that there are occasions when one ought to sacrifice something in the way of trade to higher issues. This country has a very particular history in relation to the developing world and, in particular, to the continent of Africa. We have heard from two noble Lords who probably know better than anyone in the country—I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Judd—the devastation that is wreaked in Africa in particular but also in many other places by the appalling trafficking in arms. Although little of that may be traced back to us, we should by every means possible prevent it. I do not see, therefore, why the Government are reluctant to apply their own criteria—not two of their six criteria, but six of their six criteria—to this very particular form of trade.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: I hope that I may add one word to what the noble Lord has just said. If there is a price tag attached to this, against that price tag is not only the
802
ethical and humanitarian arguments, but the cost over and over again to Britain and the international community of dealing with the consequences.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment. I just hope that it is strong enough and goes into sufficient detail to achieve the purposes which every single Member of the Committee who has spoken on it wants to achieve. I raised this matter at Second Reading, both as regards brokering in general and where it takes place, but although I had given notice I received no reply whatever. As regards extra-territorial jurisdiction, the deterrent effect of such jurisdiction does not lie in the number of cases that may be brought but rather in the knowledge that where the evidence is available there will certainly be prosecution.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the Minister and to the Committee because when we were discussing Amendment No. 14 I did not look up the definition in the Bill of a 'United Kingdom person', which the Minister helpfully read out. As I have a supplementary question flowing from that, I shall read it out again. Subsection (1) of Clause 10 states:
"'United Kingdom person' means a United Kingdom national, a Scottish partnership or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom".
There is also a supplementary definition of a United Kingdom national. I have a reason for asking the question. Although I did not ask it when we discussed Clause 3, this amendment happily gives me the opportunity to ask it under Clause 4. Like many others in the kingdom, I have periodically in the course of the past three or four months read about the sheikhs who are supposed in some way or other to have links with the Al'Qaeda network to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred a moment ago. If that particular category of person does not fall under the definition that has been read out, do the offences which we discussed in Clauses 3 and 4 apply to a non-United Kingdom person resident in the United Kingdom if he is the person who is controlling the person abroad? If that does not apply under this legislation, is there separate terrorism legislation under which it applies? If I misunderstand the category and the definition, I shall be delighted to be enlightened and I shall sleep more soundly tonight.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall deal with that point first. I shall get advice, but as I understand it, the point is being made that if, for example, a sheikh operates in London controlling someone in some foreign country to commit some act, the matter would turn on whether any part of that act takes place in the United Kingdom. I cannot see that the legislation could conceivably cover the case of a non-United Kingdom person directing someone who is not a United Kingdom person outside the United Kingdom, unless the instructions or the activities take place in the UK. So if that was not the case, the sheikh operating in Saudi Arabia would be caught if he gave some instructions to a person. I hope I have understood the

803
question that was asked. However, if the action takes place in the UK, it is caught by the measure which covers brokering within the United Kingdom.
I turn to the main points that have been raised on the amendment. The amendment proposed would impose a legal requirement that any trade controls introduced by the Secretary of State must apply to all acts conducted outside the UK by United Kingdom persons. No exceptions could be made to allow certain trade controls to be territorial in scope. I should make it clear that Clause 4 will allow the Government to impose trade controls extra-territorially. As we made clear, we intend to use that power to introduce controls that apply extra-territorially on trafficking and brokering to any embargoed destinations and on trafficking arid brokering in torture equipment and long-range missiles to any destinations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, that the reasons for choosing these products is entirely to do with the question of the criteria that you apply to extraterritoriality, one of which is that there is general consensus that these actions are generally deplored. In the case of torture equipment, long-range missiles and sending goods to embargoed destinations, it is reasonable to assume that anyone would be aware that those were the kind of actions which were prohibited. However, as will be clear to everyone, the areas which are covered by the Bill are extremely wide as regards the categories of goods that can be controlled.
For example, we are also talking about machine tools which could be used to make weapons of mass destruction or other goods which fall under the category of relevant consequences. We are covering a wide range of goods. It may not be obvious to people that those goods will be covered by the licensing system. We have focused, I believe rightly, on areas which everyone understands need to be controlled.
We do not believe it right for any and every control introduced under Clause 4 to have to apply extra-territorially, as the amendment seeks to provide. I would observe in passing that such a provision would sit uncomfortably within the structure of an enabling Bill. But, more importantly, our view is that it will not always be appropriate to apply controls extra-territorially. The Government intend to introduce controls on trafficking and brokering of equipment on the UK's military list to any destination. For a number of reasons, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to apply those controls to the activities of UK citizens where these are carried out wholly abroad.
As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, it has been the policy of successive British governments to apply extra-territorial jurisdiction only for the most serious internationally condemned offences. We believe that that does apply to trafficking and brokering to embargoed destinations, in torture equipment or in long-range missiles. Here the individual should be fully aware that what they are doing is likely to be illegal unless special permission has been granted in exceptional circumstances. However, the vast majority of trade in military equipment to non-embargoed destinations will consist of legitimate transactions or activities.
804
These controls cover a wide range of goods. Most of those goods are not goods which are generally condemned when applying Home Office criteria. To apply extra-territorial controls to such an activity would therefore risk criminalising the involvement of UK nationals settled overseas in a legitimate export of defence or other equipment from their countries of residence. For example, a UK citizen of long-term residence in Switzerland—it could be Australia, Germany or France—could be employed by a local company involved in export of spare parts for military equipment. Even if those exports were carried out in accordance with the local law, and even if the transactions in question would have been granted a licence by the UK had one been applied for. that UK citizen would become a criminal if he did not know that he needed a licence from the UK Government.
A further point is that enforcement of extraterritorial controls is particularly difficult, as the US Government find. Our enforcement effort should be targeted on the activities of greatest concern. In all of this, we need to be mindful of having controls that are proportionate, effective and credible.
Nevertheless, under the new controls on trade in military equipment we shall be able to prosecute offences that take place outside the UK where any part—I stress "any part"—of a particular trafficking and brokering offence was carried out in the UK, even if it were a phone call, fax or e-mail sent from here.
I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the situation in Africa. There is no doubt that many problems arise from what he calls the disease of conflict. Economic growth in those circumstances is almost impossible. But there is no point in introducing impractical controls. The US has found it impractical to have such controls. I hasten to add that that has nothing whatever to do with protecting our defence industry. It is not relevant to that. Almost certainly it is not involved. It is to do with the practicality of trying to control actions which are not recognised by everyone as prohibited.
Finally, we believe—it is the more positive way to approach the issue—that combating unscrupulous arms dealers and illicit arms trafficking effectively requires international co-operation and we have therefore supported steps to achieve this. The Government will continue to press for international embargoes to be imposed on countries, in regions of conflict. That is the best way to stop the supply of arms to those regions. We have supported the recently adopted European Union statement of principles on controlling arms brokering. And we take every opportunity to encourage the growing international consensus on the need for controls in this area. For example, both the UN Firearms Protocol adopted in May last year and the conclusions of the UN conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects in July have recognised the need to enhance international co-operation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering.

805
This is the way to tackle the problem, not to introduce controls which are impractical to implement. For these reasons, I believe that it would be counterproductive to require that all trade controls introduced under the Bill apply extra-territorially. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rea: Can my noble friend clarify one point? With regard to exports to embargoed countries, do the extra-territorial controls involve all the goods specified in the new schedule or do they apply only to torture equipment, missiles and weapons of mass destruction?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: With regard to embargoed countries, we are talking about the UK's military list which is a particularly defined list. If I am incorrect, I shall come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Razzall: I feel sympathy, as I am sure do other noble Lords, for the Minister. The noble Lord presents a Bill to the House with which we all agree. However, he has been subjected to extensive criticism that this clause does not go far enough.
The noble Lord could have presented the Bill to the House with Clause 4 as originally drafted and then produced the secondary legislation after the event. However, he has indicated to the House in advance what he intends to do and the criticisms relate to the secondary legislation limited to the categories of armaments, embargoed countries, torture equipment and ballistic missiles.
Members of this House—the Minister will understand if I describe the arguments as coming from the forces of good in this House; I do not refer only to the right reverend Prelate—believe that those three categories of restriction are not satisfactory. We strongly ask the noble Lord to consider between now and Report stage whether the fertile brains of his civil servants can produce wider proposals which will meet the genuine concerns of the Committee. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the remarks of the right reverend Prelate relating to the German experience of dissatisfaction with the current position. Why are we not prepared to follow the experience of the United States on this issue? The restrictions that we ask the Minister to introduce would apply if this were the United States. Why will the United Kingdom not have the same controls as the United States?
I am sure the Minister will undertake again to consider the matter before Report stage. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I think that it will be convenient to break now for about an hour. I suggest that during the hour we deal with the Statement on the London Underground, and that as soon as we return we deal with the construction orders. I am told that they will be brief. We can then continue with the Bill. I beg to
806
move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that we do not return before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Tax Credits Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

London Underground
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a Statement on the future of London Underground. Earlier today the board of London Regional Transport announced that it was 'minded to proceed' with its plans for the modernisation of the Tube. In coming to its conclusion, the board has undertaken a thorough evaluation of the bids to assess whether they are likely to provide value for money. It is confident that they will do so and that the proposed contracts will provide an appropriate basis for the future maintenance and renewal of London Underground's infrastructure.
"The board of London Regional Transport will now consult the Mayor of London and Transport for London under the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The final decision on whether to proceed will be taken in the light of that consultation.
"Last autumn, I announced that I intended to take independent advice from Ernst & Young on the evaluation process that London Underground and London Regional Transport had followed and on the robustness of their conclusions. Ernst & Young began its work in October and has kept in close contact with London Underground during the evaluation of the final bids.
"Ernst & Young has reached the following conclusion: overall the methodology adopted for assessing the value for money by London Underground has been robust and appropriate; and London Underground's recommendation that the PPP proposals deliver value for money is a subjective one which is supported by its analysis. Copies of its report were placed in the Vote Office at 2.45 p.m. when I answered a Written Question on this issue.
"I have always made it clear that my approach to the modernisation of London Underground would be based on three principles. There must be no privatisation. Safety must not be compromised and the contracts must offer value for money.

807
"First, there must be no privatisation. Under these proposals there will be no privatisation or part-privatisation. London Underground remains in the public sector and will have control of all operations. It will run the trains, work the signals, control the track and operate the stations. The public sector will be in charge of the safe operation of a single unified network. London Underground will set the strategic priorities for investment and monitor the performance of the private sector contractors who build and maintain the infrastructure.
"Where the contracts differ from current arrangements involving the private sector is principally in their scope, duration, and in the allocation of responsibility for integrating the various packages of work necessary to upgrade the Tube and modernise it properly.
"These are long-term arrangements that envisage a real partnership between London Underground and the private sector, which will work together to deliver sustained improvements. This partnership should enable substantial efficiencies to be realised and locked into the long-term process of Tube modernisation. In particular, it should prevent the problems of the past, when infrastructure improvements, notably of course the Jubilee Line extension, have all too often come in over budget and later than originally planned.
"The private sector is committed, under contract, to deliver specific improvements. London Underground will be empowered to monitor the contracts closely and enforce them rigorously. If the private sector companies fail to perform, they will be penalised. If that sanction fails, they could lose their contracts. And if the private sector does not do the work properly or puts safety at risk, London Underground will be able to step in and do the necessary work itself at the private sector's expense.
"Secondly, safety will not be compromised. The Health and Safety Executive is currently considering changes to London Underground's railway safety case to reflect the bidders' proposals for maintaining and upgrading the network. Only if those are accepted will the modernisation plans be allowed to proceed. If they do proceed, the infrastructure controller, London Underground—in the public sector—will retain clear statutory responsibility for safety across the entire network. The private sector infrastructure companies will have a contractual safety case with London Underground. They will have to perform to standards every bit as demanding as those required by London Underground's own statutory safety case. It will be for the Health and Safety Executive to accept the safety case. This is not a matter to be decided by politicians. It is far better to leave it to the independent experts.
"The third test is value for money. I have always said that the Tube modernisation plans should not proceed unless they were likely to provide appropriate value for money. In preparing its final
808
assessment of the proposed Tube modernisation contracts, London Underground has conducted a full evaluation of value for money. As the National Audit Office has said, value for money is not a simple pass-fail test. London Underground has carried out a thorough evaluation of bids incorporating both a financial assessment against a public sector comparator and wider factors that cannot be quantified in purely financial terms.
"Essentially, the public sector comparator measures the cost of providing the same modernisation of Tube infrastructure under current arrangements. It also takes account of two possible funding scenarios: annual grant and bond finance. Honourable Members will be aware that in December 2000 the National Audit Office reported on the public sector comparator that London Underground proposed to use and made various recommendations. These have been taken into account in the construction of the comparator used for this final evaluation of the bids.
"London Uderground's evaluation demonstrates that the Tube modernisation contracts are likely to deliver good value for money over the 30-year term of the contracts. Even when tested on a much more demanding seven-and-ahalf-year basis, the value for money of the PPP remains favourable. And the bids look good not just against a public sector option funded in the conventional way through annual grant, but also one funded by bonds, which was, of course, the Mayor's preferred approach.
"On the basis of the advice that we have now received, the Government believe that the Tube modernisation proposals represent the best way forward. In headline terms London Underground will receive investment on an unprecedented scale. Now that the actual bids have been evaluated, I am able to report that we would expect to see investment of some £16 billion over the next 15 years. That figure includes nearly £8.5 billion to he spent on trains and signalling, nearly £4 billion on track, and more than £3.5 billion on stations. By any standards that represents a step change in the amount of money spent on the Underground to make it a system fit for the 21st century.
"The benefits of proceeding with the Tube modernisation contracts would be considerable. Over the first 15 years of the contract London Underground will save £2 billion compared to traditional public funding. On any measure, that represents a significant saving to the public sector. What is more, the contracts will mean faster and more reliable Tube journeys than the alternatives. London Underground says that these could be worth as much as a further £2 billion to its passengers.
"Such savings can only be achieved through harnessing the private and the public sector together, which is why this partnership is such an important feature of the Government's reform of the delivery of public services. Over the first 15 years

809
of the contracts, £4 billion of the money going into improvements to the Tube will come from private finance. Put simply, if that money were not forthcoming, it would need to be found within the public sector, which would mean less money to spend on other priorities such as health, education and other parts of the transport system.
"There is a clear choice. On the one hand, we can move ahead with proposals that will see the Tube transformed, with real year-on-year improvements beginning immediately the contracts are signed. We think that that is the right way forward—subject, of course, to the outcome of the consultation process and to the board of London Regional Transport taking a final decision to proceed with the contracts.
"Alternatively, we can look forward to more delay while different plans are prepared and a new procurement exercise put in place. That would condemn Londoners to several more years of the status quo, with a creaking infrastructure that is unable to deliver the efficient and modern Underground system that the travelling public rightly deserves.
"Our modernisation plans for the Tube will unlock £16 billion of investment over the next 15 years, which is the equivalent of £5,000 for every household in London. There will be no privatisation. The publicly owned London Underground will remain in control, and safety will be paramount, which is why the final say on safety will rest with the Health and Safety Executive. These proposals form the basis of creating a Tube fit for the 21st century and I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.40 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. My first question is: why are we having a Statement at this hour? It is rather extraordinary to have one so late in the day. Is it because the Government have not been able to make up their mind until the very last moment about what they are going to do?
I notice that yesterday the Institute of Actuaries said that government officials had threatened to stop Andrew Smith, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, from speaking at a conference because a press release that the institute was about to release was critical of some private finance initiatives associated with the Tube scheme. I await the Minister's comments on that. As usual, he will no doubt be robust in his defence of his Secretary of State; it is probable that the more robust he is, the more we shall wonder about the case he is putting forward.
One has to ask: why do the Government like the PPP? The first reason is that it does not show up as public spending. The Treasury likes it because it is off balance sheet. What rate of return do the Government believe is reasonable for the private sector partners who come into the scheme? What is that on a per
810
annum basis and over the 30-year life of the contract? How much will they get out of it? Does the Minister agree that in the end the taxpayer has to pay? How can the Government claim that there will be significant savings when we know that there will not be a dramatic increase in capacity on the Underground? Will fares have to increase?
The PPP may introduce finance but it does not give greater choice to London Underground about how that money is spent. In effect, the PPP saddles the Underground with a new bureaucracy. The Government need to explain what incentives there are to improve services and make savings that can be reinvested for the benefit of the travelling public.
How much have the department and the Treasury spent so far on assessing the PPP contracts? Some very large sums have been quoted in the newspapers. I know that the noble and learned Lord does not always believe what he reads in the newspapers but we should be interested to hear his views.
The all-party Transport Select Committee criticised almost every aspect of the Government's plans. It did so in relation to safety, fares, disruption and value for money. Three million people travel on the Tube every day but we have now been told that the Health and Safety Executive has been given only one month to decide whether safety plans are adequate.
On fares, the original plans assumed that surplus fares would pay for a significant slice of investment and maintenance for the system. We now know that, in relation to the Tube, revenue has been declining since 1998.
The all-party transport committee concluded that,
"the PPP will lead to significant and expensive disputes over the contracts".
It added:
"We recommend that the Government does not approve the PPP deal".
It is extraordinary that that should be the unanimous view of the committee.
Under the plan, there will be no new rolling stock for several years. I believe the figures are seven years for the Victoria line and perhaps 10 years for the rest. What about increased capacity? How will overcrowding be managed? Can the Minister say in what month—or even in what year—the first new carriage will enter the system after the contracts have been signed? He said in the Statement that as soon as a contract is signed there will be immediate improvements. What will they be?
The Government have given Ken Livingstone 15 days for consultation. They may live to regret that, but I am not sure whether they should give him a much longer or a much shorter period; however, that is their problem.
I return to the contracts. What are the risks of the PPP to the private sector? Is it correct that in the contracts the risk is capped? How do the Government square that with the rate of return that they will get? Will the rate of return be higher than that which could

811
be gained on the bond market, for example? If the contracts do not work, what will be the process for renegotiation?
I note that the Ernst & Young report states:
"The contract structure is unique, inevitably meaning that it has not been proven in a commercial environment. London Underground has sought to test significant parts of the structure through shadow running over recent years. Whilst this exercise is unprecedented and provides some assurance over the contract, it remains unproven".
This proposal is a massive leap in the dark and I doubt whether it will work. It will be expensive. If there are savings, it is clear that no one will be able to validate what they are until perhaps the last five years of the 30-year contract. In the first seven to 10 years, there will be no real difference.
The approach is going to fail unless it can pass four crucial tests. The Minister will have to assure us in this regard. Can he guarantee that there will be more trains running on the Tube network and that there will be less overcrowding? Can he guarantee that there will be a more reliable service? Can he guarantee improvements in safety for both passengers and staff? Finally, can the Government guarantee that passengers will no longer be left stranded at stations because of strikes?
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I must declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly. One might describe that role as being the Mayor's watchdog. I am certainly not uncritically supportive of his position. However, my criticisms of the proposals announced today—no surprise, but we have finally got them—are not a long way from those of the Mayor's.
Is the arrangement truly to be described as a partnership? Is it truly the best way of putting money in? And is it truly what in footballing parlance one might call a "result" for London? London is not just its residents; it is, among other things, the powerhouse of the British economy. The economy in London depends on London being able to operate, and it is hugely dependent on its Tube network.
I wonder whether the Ernst & Young conclusion really amounts to unequivocal advice with which the Government can be comfortable in going forward. I have had the report for only a very short time but noble Lords will notice—I know that one cannot use visual aids—the number of yellow flags that I have already placed in it. I shall try to resist quoting all the parts I have marked.
On shadow running, to which the noble Viscount referred, the report states:
"Whilst this exercise is unprecedented and provides some assurance over the contract, it remains unproven".
It also says,
"there is a risk that value for money could be eroded".
There are a good many references to the public sector comparator. It is surprisingly—I use that word in view
812
of the Minister's dismissal of this—supportive of bonds by way of financing. The report states that,
"the source of public sector funding should not be a determinant of value for money. We consider that a stable funding option … is a relevant comparator … a Transport for London bond issue could be one source of such stable funding".
What further information, if any, about the public sector comparator will be published? It is not clear whether what is contained in the report amounts to the information about the public sector comparator that we were promised when the GLA Act was passed.
The context for the decision is, of course, devolution. It is remarkable how little central government and the Mayor have worked together. I cannot help feeling that personalities have played a part in that.
I have one immediate point for the Minister. The Mayor, I am told, understood that he would have an extra five days—that seems not very long in the context of this saga—to consider the contract that he has not yet seen. He put his team on standby. They are available from now on to work overnight and through the weekend. In fact, the documents will not be available until 9 o'clock on Monday. Is this really partnership with London's government? How long will the consultation process last and whom are the Government consulting?
More importantly, not only has the contract been unavailable until now, but no financial information has been available. This is the time of year when the different spheres of government consider their budgets. The Greater London Authority's budget is no exception. At the GLA we shall have to take decisions with regard to the budget as early as next week. There is no information available and none has been provided to us despite requests about what dowry, if I may express it in that term, will be passed over by central Government to meet London Underground's liabilities. I imagine that there will be many such liabilities and that many will be substantial, and that is allied with its current deficit on the fare box. The noble Viscount mentioned that the fare box is reducing; it is actually now in deficit. Therefore, what guarantee is there that Tube fares can be maintained at current levels?
Given the possible scenario of an insufficient dowry, can the Minister assure Londoners that they will not face the risk of a huge rise in council tax to meet such a deficit or risk losing other improvements to London's transport which are the responsibility of Transport for London?
The context is also that of scrutiny—a role which central government are keen for local government: to employ. However, given the highly critical report of the transport Select Committee, it seems to me that central Government will not take their own medicine. It is not only that criticism which is significant but the fact that the Government have given themselves no time to consider it.
Transport for London is the public part of the partnership. As I understand it, it will remain dependent on government grant. The Minister spoke

813
of unlocking £16 billion. Is it not the case that only £4 billion will be unlocked through this arrangement because £12 billion will come from central Government? What assurances do the public have that that £12 billion will be available in accordance with the timetable? I am not accusing the Government of not providing it, but it is certainly not clear to me where that fits into the contractual scheme of things. If there is no commitment that anyone can enforce, one simply has to rely on government good will.
There are so many questions that one wants to ask and I must be mindful of not being tedious or exceeding my welcome, as it were. But perhaps I may point to the finance market's testing clause. That indicates that if the Infraco companies fail to come up with the cash at the seven-and-a-half year point, Transport for London will have to pick up the tab, with London council tax payers again being at risk of facing big rises.
Can the Minister explain what scope there will be under the PPP for Transport for London to determine the priorities for modernising the Underground? Will it be able, for example, to give priority to modernising track and signalling rather than stations? Perhaps more broadly, can the Minister give the House a target date by which he expects us to be able to describe the Tube as a "modern" service?
Over the past few days and weeks, we have heard much from the Government about public services. With regard to the Underground, they have spent four years saying, "We must do something and we must do it now". Indeed, we have heard the £16 billion figure mentioned for quite some time.
I would welcome a result for London, but I do not believe that this will be one. I consider this to be closer to a betrayal. Time has been wasted during which travelling in London is at best uncomfortable and at worst a nightmare. I do not believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel as a result of this Statement—not even, some might say, the light of an advancing train. This is a tale of delay which exceeds that of which even those who are accustomed to relying on transport operators have experience.
1 return to my first point. Can this really be a good, effective partnership? Does it not give scope for the participants to squabble, to blame each other and to give the term "partners" a new and appalling meaning?
7.55 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the first question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was: why are we having the Statement at this late hour? It is certainly not because of any indecision. I believe that the noble Viscount should ask the business managers on his side in another place why the Statement is occurring at 7 p.m.
Secondly, why do we like the PPP? Because, following thorough consideration of the matter, over a 15 year-period it involves levering £16 billion into modernisation of the Tube: £12 billion from the public
814
sector and £4 billion from the private sector, to pick up the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Thirdly, what return will the private sector receive? As the three PPP contracts with which we are dealing will vary within each of the three contracts, the amount that each of the three PPP contractors will receive will reasonably reflect the risk that they are taking.
The fourth question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was: is it not creating a new bureaucracy? No; it is creating a situation in which London Underground will continue to run and control the Tube. It provides a means of bringing in investment in order to deliver modernisation of the Tube.
How much has the DTLR or Treasury spent on evaluating the proposal? Central Government have spent approximately £0.5 million in relation to consultants' fees. Obviously London Underground has spent considerably more than that. When will there be increased capacity? Over the period of the PPP, capacity will be increased substantially: for example, by 22 per cent on the Jubilee Line; 15 per cent on the Victoria Line; and 17 per cent on the Metropolitan and Circle Lines. That process of increased capacity will take place within the next 10 years.
In answer to the question concerning early improvements, on the Jubilee Line southbound track will be replaced in the first year of the PPP in order to remove speed restrictions between Kingsbury and Wembley Park stations. Track work will be carried out on the Piccadilly Line so that speed restrictions can be lifted between Heathrow and Acton Town. Modernisation will begin at Parsons Green, Aldgate East and Notting Hill stations. Work will begin in October this year on replacing lifts at Elephant & Castle. Work will also be carried out to replace lifts at West Brompton. Work on additional train crew facilities will start at Plaistow on the Hammersmith & City and District Lines and at Earls Court. All 150 stations and all trains on the sub-surface network will be deeply cleaned in the first year of the PPP. And, as soon as the financial conclusions have been reached, Metronet will begin work immediately on the Victoria Line.
Therefore, both in the 10-year period and in the first-year period significant improvement to the Tube will take place. But let us make no mistake. This is a long-term process that requires long-term and sustained investment to make up for the previous shortage of investment that occurred over many years.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, ended his questions by asking whether we can guarantee that there will be more trains, more reliability and more safety. The proposal involves bringing in significant numbers of new trains; over 336 new trains by 2014 and an additional 42 trains by 2019. Can we deliver more reliability? Yes, the purpose of the scheme is to improve the reliability of the Tube. Can we improve safety? As has been made clear again and again, safety is a priority and it is subject to the views of the Health and Safety Executive.

815
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred the House to the number of yellow flags in her copy of the Ernst & Young report, but happily did not read every extract, for which I express my profound gratitude. She asked what further information will be made available on the public sector comparator. London Underground, as the noble Baroness knows, has produced a detailed document setting out a full analysis of the public sector comparator. In due course, the National Audit Office will publish its own assessment. That office has made it clear that it does not want to publish one now because it felt that to secure its objectivity, it should not involve itself in the process of making the decision.
The noble Baroness also raised questions about how long the Mayor will have to consider the terms of the contract. He will have a reasonable time in which to do that, but let us not forget that this process and the evaluation have been taking place for some time. While a reasonable time must be given for consultation and consideration, I believe that most Londoners are keen that a decision is made and that the process of modernising the Tube gets under way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also sought an undertaking that the council tax will not be increased. As she well knows, the council tax is a matter for the London boroughs. The precept is a matter for the Mayor and the GLA. They must make their decisions in relation to that. She asked for confirmation of the figures of £12 billion of public sector money and £4 billion of private sector money over 15 years. I have already given an answer to that.
One can continue to ask specific and detailed questions and I am aware that I have not answered all the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The proposals have been evaluated closely by London Underground. The reasoning and the approach have been considered by Ernst & Young. Subject to consultation, decisions have been made so that the process of modernising the Tube can begin.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it cannot be stated too often that the PPP that he has announced for the London Underground bears no relation whatever to what happened with Railtrack? Control of the Tube will stay in public hands. Its operations, which include running the trains, staffing the stations and operating the signals, will be kept together and the responsibility for safety will remain with London Underground, subject to the approval of the Health and Safety Executive.
In relation to safety, has my noble and learned friend seen the comments of the Mayor of London which appear to have become even more intemperate as each day of this week has passed? Has he also seen the comment in the Evening Standard of Monday that stated that Mayor Livingstone has warned that there could be mass deaths on the Tube if the Government press ahead with the public private partnership
816
proposals for the system. Does my noble and learned friend agree that that is scaremongering and the politics of the playground?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the first point, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord's analysis of the profound difference between these proposals and the privatisation of Railtrack. Railtrack involved privatisation and the separation of track and train. In the Railtrack model separate groups were appointed; in this model London Underground remains in control of the whole process of the Tube.
As my right honourable friend made clear in another place, safety is a matter that cannot he left to the politicians. The Health and Safety Executive will form conclusions about the safety of the proposal, as it intends to do. I have not read the comment of the Mayor about the matter, but we have confidence that the Health and Safety Executive will form an unbiased and an objective view on safety. It is right that it should be left to that body.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether, in the period of nearly five years during which the PPP has been discussed, the level of funding made available to London Underground has been adequate? Does he recall that before the last election the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a figure of £775 million per annum being made available, but that, in practice, it appears that much less has been made available? Will that not add to the backlog from which the PPP will start? Has that been taken into account in the PPP proposals?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a precise figure at the moment, but I shall put it in writing to him. As regards the figure being adequate, it is perfectly obvious that substantial investment is required in the Tube. These three PPP contracts take that into account.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, grateful as I am for any conclusive or even contingent decision by the Government, I have one general question and one particular question to put to the Minister. My first question follows on that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Why has it taken four and two-thirds years of theological discussion by this Government to reach this point? During that time Londoners—I declare an interest as a Londoner myself—have watched the service deteriorate steadily and the capital's productivity has been seriously eroded in the process.
My particular question relates to the Minister engagingly using the words in the Statement "work the signals". In recent years signalling on the Underground has been a nightmare. I speak as a commuter and as someone who has talked to Underground management. Will these new arrangements lead to the abandonment by the Underground of the unique signalling specifications that we have set up in this country, as the lack of orders ineluctably cause international signalling companies

817
to close their British subsidiaries—subsidiaries that were set up to be UK specific—and instead will they lead to accepting international specifications, which will mean ordering more cheaply and, perhaps even more importantly, more swiftly off the peg? I ask that latter, small question because it sounds as though the Government are about to embark on another and larger UK-specific experiment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about the signalling point, because I am not in a position to deal with it. On the question of why it has taken so long, we had to evaluate all the options in relation to the Tube, which took some time. Thereafter, once it had been decided to go down this path, a necessary consequence was that there had to be complicated negotiations. Once those negotiations reached a close, there had to be an evaluation of the safety case and of the value-formoney case. The matter was not speeded up by the fact that the Mayor of London opposed the proposals and, ultimately, took the Government to court in the middle of last year, which inevitably delayed the process further.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, when the Government can borrow money for 30 years at 5 per cent fixed, or 2 per cent nominal, how on earth can this PPP represent value for money to the taxpayers? Why does the Minister believe that some of the most profitable companies quoted on the Stock Exchange are drooling over the prospect of these contracts? Does the Minister not understand that their shareholders would sack the PPP bidders' boards tomorrow unless they were building in projected rates of return of at least double or treble those on government bonds?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the assessment made by London Underground of the comparison with the public sector comparator considers all of the issues, including the return on the cost of borrowing, and forms the view clearly that it is better value-for-money to go with the PPP than to take the public sector comparator. Ernst & Young has made an analysis of the approach taken by London Underground and it too has concluded that the approach taken by London Underground is appropriate to consider where the risk should lie. That company considers that substantial gains will be made in terms of management and performance if the PPP goes ahead.
Lord Elder: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is quite remarkable that the two Opposition parties seem to be so nervous about the introduction of public sector finance and involvement in this project? Is it not more remarkable, given that the bulk of the finance and all the administration will remain in the public sector and that the private sector's involvement, while significant, is relatively small? Does he further agree with me that the advantage of that private sector involvement is that, perhaps for the
818
first time, we will be able to drive the situation in which the delivery on time and to cost of public sector investment will be met?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. London Underground remains in the public sector. That is made clear. The risk of delivering the improvements in the infrastructure falls to the private sector under the PPP. That is the merit of the system.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, may I press the Minister further about what rate of return he would expect for the private sector operators?. His reply was that it, "reasonably reflects the risk that they are taking". At what level will this be? So far as I can see, very little risk is actually being passed on. In so far as there is a shortfall of revenue, it is passed on to Transport for London. Again, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained, in the case of the financing, if the infra-cos fail to come up with the financing within two months after the seven and-a-half-year period—the break in the middle—then it is for London to find the financing for it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the break is delivery so far as concerns the contract. They must deliver particular standards of modernisation and improvement. If they do not, not only do they risk not making a return on the contract but they also risk being fined. There is the risk. It is a commercial risk.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I must first declare an interest too as a Member of the London Assembly and indeed of its budget committee that is this week and next week scrutinising Transport for London's budget. The Minister, I am sure unintentionally, forgot to answer one of the very important questions from my noble friend Lady Hamwee who chairs the GLA's budget committee. She asked about what she referred to as the "dowry". Can the Minister confirm that when London Underground eventually passes to TfL that it will be passed over with a dowry, with a sufficient sum to meet all its liabilities?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in the light of the conclusion now in relation to the PPP negotiations, of course the position is that final decisions in relation to all of that can now be made.
Lord Tope: My Lords, can we have a translation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously I cannot give a specific figure in relation to the dowry, nor am I in a position to give assurances in relation to particular arrangements. Obviously, now that the PPP contracts are near to finalisation, the position is that all of those financial details can be worked out, but on the basis that the Government stand firmly behind the PPP contracts as the way forward for the Tube.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord saying that he is not willing to tell us what

819
the rate of return is? If he does not have knowledge of what the rate would be, can he tell us when it will be made available?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that I have made it clear that there will be different rates of return in relation to each of the three PPP contracts. It will not be possible just to give a headline figure in relation to that. The rates of return will have been taken into account in the value-for-money comparison.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, if the Minister is not able to give us one headline figure, perhaps he could give us the three figures.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that I have made it clear that it would not be possible just to take a headline figure for each one, but that it has been taken into account.
Lord Roper: My Lords, perhaps I can pursue this point with the Minister. Can he give us some indication of the range within which these figures will fall?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall not be drawn on giving bits and pieces in relation to the detailed value-for-money evaluation.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to follow the procedure which was suggested by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms before we started the Statement, which was if we completed the Statement in less 1 han an hour, we would adjourn for pleasure until that hour had elapsed: we would then resume and take the two orders.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the advice. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.15 to 8.30 p.m.]

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2002
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ashton, I beg to move that the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2002 be approved. I shall also speak to the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2002. The proposals before the House seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on employers in the industries they cover.
Industrial training boards, or ITBs, as we all know them, are non-departmental public bodies set up under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Their role is to ensure that the quantity and quality of training are adequate to meet the needs of the industries for which they are established. They provide a wide range of services, including setting occupational standards and developing vocational qualifications, delivering modern apprenticeships and paying direct grants to employers who carry out training to approved standards.
The Act contains provision for a levy on employers to finance an ITB's activities and to share the cost of training more evenly between companies in an industry. It is for the employer members of a board to make proposals for the rate of levy for the industry it covers and for the Secretary of State to make an order giving effect to the proposals.
The orders before your Lordships give effect to proposals submitted by the CITB and the ECITB for their 2002 levy. Each of them involves the imposition of a levy in excess of 1 per cent of payroll on some classes of employer. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires such orders to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
In each case, the levies are based on employers' payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. For both boards the proposals involve levy rates in excess of 0.2 per cent with no exemption other than for small firms. In such cases, a levy order can be made only if the proposals have the support of organisations representing the majority of those employers who pay most of the levy. It has been established through consultation with the main employer organisations in each industry that the proposals have that support.
The Act requires ITBs to exclude small firms from the levy and each of the proposals does that. In setting the level at which the exemption takes effect, the boards have tried to strike a balance between helping small firms to grow and giving them unfair commercial advantage. However, both boards are committed to supporting the training efforts of small firms, whether or not they pay levy. All companies need a skilled, competent workforce if they are to be competitive and small firms in those sectors are encouraged to take advantage of the services offered by the boards and to provide opportunities for trainees and apprentices.
In the construction industry, a higher levy rate is imposed on employers' use of sub-contract labour than on their direct workforce. That is because, according to the industry, the vast majority of training is carried out by employers with a directly employed labour force. Employers who opt to use labour-only subcontractors tend to have a transitory arrangement with those subcontractors and are not normally involved in their training.
In the order before your Lordships, the CITB proposes that both its levy rates should stay the same as those approved by the House last year: that is, 0.5 per cent of payroll for direct employees and 1.5 per cent of net expenditure on sub-contract labour.
Employers whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is less than £61,000 will not have to pay the levy.
In the engineering construction industry, head offices and engineering construction sites are levied at different rates to reflect the fact that head offices, where workforces are far more stable, are able to plan and manage most of their training needs themselves. In the second order before your Lordships, the ECITB proposes that both its levy rates should stay the same as those approved by the House last year; that is, 0.18 per cent of the total of payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour for head offices—head offices whose combined payroll and net expenditure on subcontract labour is £1 million or less will not have to pay the levy—and 1.5 per cent of the total of payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour for engineering construction sites. Sites whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is £75,000 or less will not have to pay the levy.
The proposals are expected to raise between £90 million and £94 million for the CITB and about £10 million for the ECITB. Your Lordships will know from our annual debates that the CITB and the ECITB exist because of wide support from employers and employer interest groups in those sectors. There is a firm belief that without them there would be a serious deterioration of training in these cyclical, peripatetic and project-based industries and their skill needs simply would not be met. I know that each board is committed to ensuring that employers in their industries receive a high quality service and I take this opportunity to thank them and their staff for their continued hard work.
The draft orders will enable the two boards to carry out their vital training responsibilities in 2002, and I believe that it is right that the House should agree to approve them. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining so well the two orders before the House. The Government Whips' Office told me that the orders were uncontroversial. Indeed, I believe that they are and we support them.
In essence, there are two industrial training boards, set up under the Industrial Act 1982, which, as we have heard, cover the construction engineering and the construction sectors. The boards provide a wide range of services and training initiatives, most of which could probably not be provided by individual employers alone. Thus, the 1982 Act provides for a levy on employers to fund training more evenly between companies. The ITB must propose the rate of the levy for the industry and the Secretary of State must make the order to give effect to it.
As I said, we support the orders but I should like to record one note of caution for the Minister. Employers whose combined payroll and net expenditure on subcontract labour is £61,000—as I thought, although the
822
noble Lord has just said that it is £75,000 this year—will be exempt from the levy. However, even if the employees were only on the national minimum wage—which is unlikely in the engineering industry—that would represent only businesses employing seven or fewer people.
If this Government are serious about helping small businesses, it is important to consider the burden on them when agreeing the levy. Nevertheless, we think that the orders are good and we support them.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in saying that we on these Benches feel that the levies are an entirely good thing. The principle of imposing a levy to finance training across the board for an industry was originally introduced in the 1960s and applied to many industries. It now applies only to the construction industry—in the two aspects before us, the construction industry itself and the engineering construction board.
Besides saying that we are happy with the orders—I remember that we agreed them last year—I have one question for the Minister. I believe that in their manifesto last summer the Government said that they were committed to extending the principle of the training levy to other sectors which voluntarily wished to introduce it. Do the Government have any plans to move further on that?
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, it is not for me to delay the House any more than is necessary. I welcome these excellent orders, but it is worth mentioning that this is the 20th year that the orders have, to all intents and purposes, gone through on the nod. They ought to be considered in the context of an excellent debate in another place earlier this week on the overall decline of industrial manufacturing.
I welcome many of the Government's proposals on the consolidation of industrial training projects, but I have some questions. I have wanted to ask those questions for four years, and this seems to be as good an opportunity as any. How valuable do the two industrial sectors—in fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said, it is a single sector—believe the levy has been to the sustainability of their industry during the past 20 years? Secondly, does either sector believe that the non-statutory provision made for other sectors offers the likelihood of a sustainable workforce in their own? I suspect that they do not. Thirdly, if the provision made by the statutory instruments is fundamental to the health of the sectors, why has it not yet been extended to others who are equally dependent on skills?
I refer again to what the noble Baroness said. There is, and always has been, a tacit commitment by the Government to extend the orders. I do not quite understand why there should be such reluctance to take that forward.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to the debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said, we have been here

823
before. In fact, I was at the Dispatch Box for this debate last year, and I remember that the questions were as informed last year as they were this year. This year, of course, I emphasise the fact that the levy rates are not changing. There was a change last year, which occasioned a little more debate.
I shall deal as precisely as I can with the questions that were raised. In response to the noble Baroness, I would say that the £75,000 was a cut-off point fox one hoard, and the £61,000 was for the Construction Industry Training Board. The other figure was for the Engineering Industry Training Board. That is why there are two figures for the definition, as it were, of firms whose activities are at such a low level that it would not be appropriate to place the levy on them.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Engineering Industry Training Board. I must correct him. There used to be an Engineering Industry Training Board levy, but there is no longer. This is the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I stand corrected. I am talking about the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. I emphasise that the cut-off point is different for the two industries, on the basis of the figures that I identified.
Of course, we reach the levy position and the cut-off point on the basis of proposals from the boards, after consultation with the industries for which they have responsibility. We have had no representations about the figure or about the use of the absolute cut-off point. so we can safely accept that they have the broad support of the industries affected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and my noble friend Lord Puttnam asked about the future.
I shall be as helpful as I can. As the noble Baroness said, we said in our manifesto that if both sides of industry in a sector agree, we will help to set up a statutory framework for training for that industry. I must report that, as yet, the only sector to express a positive interest in developing a statutory framework is the print industry. Discussions are going on for that industry. The House will recognise that, as far as concerns training arrangements, it is important to work with the grain of the industries involved. That is why we have expressed ourselves in those terms.
In response to my noble friend Lord Puttnam, I must say that I would like the debate to be broad enough for us to engage in a thorough analysis of the training needs of the nation and how we can respond to them. However, there is other business before the House tonight, in which several noble Lords present have an interest, so I shall not go on too long. I respect what my noble friend said about the importance of recognising that the training boards play a limited part in the overall training needs related to the two industries.
My noble friend will know that the Government have, of course, invested a great deal in training strategy, particularly the development of the Learning
824
and Skills Council, and we are considering the question of sector skills development. That will involve a great deal of intermeshing between these boards, between employers and the development of the local dimensions of the Learning and Skills Council. There is a great deal of work going on to ensure that the objectives—which, I know, my noble friend shares with the Government—are realised. We should not underestimate the fact that, as a nation, we have not invested as much in training as we would have wished. That shows itself in every conceivable statistic of measurement against our major industrial rivals. There is no doubt that it is an important priority for the Government. The only thing that I would say to my noble friend is that it would be remiss of me to dwell for the many minutes that I would like on the broader issues of training. I must restrict myself to the orders.
On the basis that I have answered the questions that were put this evening, I can commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2002
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Export Control Bill
8.46 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"CONTROL OF LICENSED PRODUCTION OF GOODS OVERSEAS
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for, or in connection with, the imposition of controls regulating the licensed production of controlled goods overseas.
(2) In this section "licensed production" mean, production under commercial licence from a United Kingdom person, United Kingdom company or company based in the United Kingdom of that entity's proprietary controlled goods or technology.
(3) An order under this section may make provision in connection with any controls that may be imposed by a directly applicable Community provision on licensed production agreements.
(4) Controls shall be imposed under this section on acts done outside the United Kingdom, but only if they are done by a person who is, or is acting under the control of, a United Kingdom person, United Kingdom company, or company based in the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: The gist of the amendment is to introduce controls on licensing overseas production. We have tabled the amendment because there is a trend among companies to diversify the areas
in which they manufacture overseas. If we are supplying markets overseas, there is competition over deals, and there is a trend to build factories in the recipient countries.
There are risks in producing overseas. Countries in which the equipment is manufactured require weapons that we would not sell directly to them. The equipment could be exported to regimes to which we would not license direct sales.
During the consultation process on the Export Control Bill, the Government acknowledged the need to address the potential dangers of licensed production. In evidence to the Quadripartite Select Committee, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers, stated that licensed production is,
"one of those areas where I think experience shows us that we could be in a potentially embarrassing position for the United Kingdom, as a country that cares about these issues, not to have an effective regime on licensed production in place. We need to use this as an opportunity to do precisely that".
That recognition has not been reflected in the Bill. In the draft Bill consultation document, two possible options for how such controls might be structured were advanced. There was also a commitment to push for reference to licensed production overseas to be included in the EU code of conduct on arms exports.
The proposals in the draft consultation put the burden of regulation on UK companies, requiring them either to require specific end-use undertakings from the overseas producer or to insert a clause in their contracts providing for restrictions on re-export. In both cases, companies would be required only to prevent re-export to destinations subject to international embargoes.
Only one of the Government's proposed options would have required the adoption of additional powers in the primary legislation. However, the Government have decided against giving themselves power in this area, stating that:
"The Government has decided, in light of the results of the consultation, not to introduce specific powers on licensed production overseas".
The purpose of this amendment is to put those powers back. The fact that the Government proposed extra controls on licensed production overseas in the consultation document and proposed new EU measures suggests that additional steps are necessary. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the Bill's existing clause on international transfers addresses the particular characteristics of licensed production—say, how to apply controls on equipment produced under licence, not just the transfer of technology by intangible means.
Maintaining control over licensed production overseas is clearly more difficult than controlling direct sales. Yet if the Government feel it is right to exert full control over direct exports, they should do the same with licensed production overseas. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Amendment No. 19 seeks to include on the face of the Bill specific
provisions governing licensed production arrangements. The Government do not believe that this issue needs to be addressed in new primary legislation, nor do we consider that the addition of this clause would in practice add meaningfully to our efforts to prevent the supply of arms to conflict zones and other sensitive areas.
It is important to recognise, first, that the Government are already able to exert a significant degree of control over the supply lines on which licensed production arrangements typically depend; and, secondly, that the new powers in the Bill will significantly strengthen and widen that existing control. That is because licensed production usually requires an initial and often continuing supply of component parts and design or production technology to the overseas producer by the company licensing the manufacture of its products.
Where the product to be manufactured under commercial licence has a potential military use, an export licence will in most cases be required before the equipment and technology necessary for the establishment and operation of the licensed production facility can be supplied. We have made clear that an export licence will not be granted where there is a clear risk that the finished products of the licensed production arrangement could be used for internal repression, or international aggression, or where they could be diverted to an unacceptable end-user.
It is clear that licensed production does not take place unless there is some transfer of technology or knowledge, and the way we can control that is by licensing the technology and knowledge, which is greatly strengthened in this Bill. At present, however, the Government are able to control transfers overseas of design and production military technology to licensed production facilities only where the transfer takes place in a physical form; for example, on a piece of paper or on a computer disk. The new power in the Bill will add an important new pillar to our existing control regime on licensed production by allowing us to control electronic transfers of sensitive military technology to such facilities as well. The Bill will also enable us to control trafficking and brokering in the component parts often required for the production of arms overseas.
Additionally, the Government are committed to making more explicit in the UK export licensing process our existing commitment to taking account of whether any proposed export of military equipment or transfer of technology is destined for use in a licensed production facility. The UK also recently made a formal approach to the EU presidency and obtained agreement that there should be discussion of the issue of licensed production overseas among member states, with a view to seeking EU-wide agreement to adding explicit reference to licensed production in the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports.
There is therefore no doubt that the UK already takes and will continue to take seriously the issue of licensed production. Moreover, the new powers in the
Bill will augment the capacity we already have to control the supply lines on which licensed production depends.
Reference was made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers, when he appeared before the Quadripartite Committee in April 2001. My right honourable friend was right to say that the Bill will allow us to put into place a more effective regime on licensed production. The new powers the Bill provides to control electronic transfers of technology will be particularly useful in strengthening and widening our existing capacity to control the supply of design and production technology to overseas licensed production facilities. In view of that, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for his reply and am grateful for the Government's move to widen the concept of licensed production overseas to an EUwide context. However, I feel that an opportunity has been lost in not including it in the Bill. I realise that this is an area which has been covered in another place. It may well be an area to which we return at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause
"END-USE MONITORING CONTROLS
(1) The Secretary of State may by order require that, for any activities in relation to which controls are capable of being imposed by an order under section 1, 2, 3 or 4, provision shall be made for follow-up monitoring of the use made of the goods exported, the technology transferred, the technical assistance provided or the goods traded.
(2) In this section "follow-up monitoring" means the undertaking of activities designed to verify that the use to which the goods, technology or technical assistance are put, and the identity of the end-users of the goods, technology or technical assistance, are consistent with the obligations stipulated in the relevant licence or end-use documentation.
(3) In subsection (2) "activities" may include, but not be limited to, physical inspection of the designated goods or technology within the territory of the state, or the jurisdiction of the end-user stipulated in the relevant licence or end-use documentation."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 20 is to introduce end-user certificates and monitoring controls. This is an area which has also been discussed at length in another place and is something which we feel strongly should be introduced into the Bill.
At the moment it is a great weakness with any movement of arms that they can be used in other countries and misdirected. We hope that this amendment will fill a gap in ensuring that weapons go to the destination stated in the export order. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I support Amendment No. 20, which seeks to introduce a clear system in the Bill for end-use certification and monitoring.
828
Over the past five or 10 years we have witnessed a number of incidents where arms of UK origin have been diverted for purposes or to destinations contrary to the Government's intentions. While the Government say that they are now taking greater consideration of the possibility of arms being diverted to undesirable users or usages and have already put in place a number of procedures—I am aware of that and they are welcome—we do not yet have a comprehensive system of end-use monitoring. We need to make it more comprehensive than it is at the moment. We must back up the present controls to give a signal not only to the people who might abuse the system, but also internationally, that we are taking end-use seriously.
I heard the Government's argument about this in the other place and also in this Chamber; that is, that we already have an adequate end-use monitoring process. But that is largely based on stringent risk assessment at an early stage of the licensing, rather than putting resources into a system of end-use monitoring. That seems to happen before rather than afterwards. While I accept that risk assessment on licensing is very important, we also need some kind of monitoring of our export regime.
One example which will be well known to Members of the Committee concerns the UK-made Hawk jets in East Timor and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As I understand the history. repeated assurances were given by the United Kingdom Government over the years that the United Kingdom-supplied equipment would not be used in East Timor. The Chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces admitted on 15th July 1999 that a British-made Hawk jet was flying over East Timor as part of a programme of intimidation against the people of East Timor, who were then striving peacefully for independence. Despite the continued evidence of violation of human rights in East Timor, the United Kingdom Government—I am a United Kingdom citizen so I am guilty too—argued that we were contractually obliged to maintain supplies of such military equipment.
Such concerns about end-use and contractual obligation arose more recently with the UK transfer of spare parts for military aircraft to Zimbabwe in January 2000, despite reports that Zimbabwe was using those very same jets in a conflict in the neighbouring DRC, then subject to a European Union arms embargo. Following a public and parliamentary outcry and a worsening human rights situation in Zimbabwe, in this case the licences were eventually suspended in May 2000. But it took a lot to get them suspended and we had to go through all that agony and horror in order for it to happen.
Such misuse of UK arms and equipment results in human rights violations against some of the poorest people in the world. We need a system of end monitoring and a process to halt further UK supplies in order to ensure that further misuses do not continue. An end-use monitoring system would help the Government by providing them with information in future about pre-delivery licensing and assessment,

829
making them more effective at preventing further diversion and misuse. The two systems would complement each other.
I have heard the Government argue that it is almost impossible to put in place such systems and we have heard today about the so-called failings of the system in the United States. However, the failings there should not mean that we do not attempt to introduce a system in principle. We could learn from America's mistakes, tighten up the system and do rather better.
The US system is not entirely a failure. The Blue Lantern system is working to catch cases of diversion and misuse. More than 4,000 checks have been made since the programme's inception, with 360 initiated during 1999. Of those, typically 5 to 10 per cent result in unfavourable results, which may lead to denials or revocations of licences, the imposition of sanctions or the prosecution of suspected law violators. State Department officials in the United States believe that the Blue Lantern programme has had some effect. It may not be perfect, but it does have a deterrent effect on would-be diversion.
Rather than saying that the United States system is not perfect, let us accept the principle of monitoring and an end-use system and see whether we can learn from its mistakes and do rather better.
It is also said that the Government should not be the monitoring system: we should rely on NGOs and the media. There were many comments earlier, from both sides of the House, about the media getting their stories right. It is therefore a bit rich for the Government to argue that we should rely on the media for information. NGOs are more reliable, but I still argue that it is a responsibility of the Government and not the NGOs.
It would be good to engage NGOs because they have vast experience throughout the world. I do not need to list them all; they are well represented here tonight. However, it should be on the face of the Bill that it is a government responsibility. There is no guarantee that a future government would stay in partnership with NGOs, even if this Government said that they would be very glad to do so.
I support the amendment. I hope that we will get a comprehensive, end-of-use monitoring system instituted. If we do not get it right first time, let us work at it and make it better.
9 p.m.
Lord Judd: The right reverend Prelate referred to East Timor, but there are other examples. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the Government's own annual report on strategic exports for 2000 gives a good deal of ground for concern. Let me be specific.
Listed in regard to Hong Kong are 24 small arms, a range of pistols, rifles and revolvers, including 15 submachine guns; a range of crowd control equipment, including ammunition; and CS hand-grenades and tear gas. But Hong Kong is now part of mainland China, which is under a European Union arms embargo.
830
Listed for Jordan are 102 small arms, including 53 sub-machine guns and 42 assault rifles; components for combat aircraft and large calibre artillery ammunition. But Jordan was named as a conduit for arms to Iraq in the Scott report.
For Paraguay there was listed 100 sub-machine guns plus components and technology. Paraguay has been named as a major transhipment route of all small arms to the illicit market in Brazil. Singapore is listed for 3,342 sub-machine guns, 744 rifles, 301 semiautomatic pistols, two sniper rifles, small arms, ammunition, components for combat aircraft and armoured personnel carriers. In the Bemarc case, British naval cannon which was sold to Singapore ended up in Iran.
Against this background, I hope that my noble friend will be able reply to two specific questions. First, what specific plans do the Government have to check whether in the instances I have mentioned the arms remained with the end-user? Secondly, does he agree that enshrining powers to monitor end use in law would strengthen the Government's ability to ensure that the weapons they are exporting are not being diverted or used in contravention of our national interest? The Export Control Bill could surely be undermined if there is no muscular mechanism to ensure that the arms we sell are with the correct end user and being used for the prescribed end use.
The Earl of Sandwich: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 49 in this important group of amendments. I make no apology for delaying the Committee. This is one of the crucial stages of the Bill.
The Government believe that they already have the power to revoke licences, but in practice any decisions are open to challenge from exporters on the grounds of their contractual obligations and the perceived need for Britain to maintain its reputation.
It is the view of many in NGOs, who have taken legal advice on the matter, that by including a revocation clause the Government would be given the necessary power in primary legislation and, in the event of any breach of a stated obligation, so reduce the likelihood of a legal challenge. In legal language, an individual's "legitimate expectations" can be overridden only by the statutory duties of the public body or by some overriding policy interest.
On end-use monitoring, the Government have decided to introduce stronger controls and to carry out risk assessment at the time of licensing. That is welcome. However, Ministers know that it is inadequate. I believe that the Minister in this House will take the issue seriously and take it away.
Mr Derek Fatchett, the former Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, who is highly respected, admitted in 1999 that no systematic monitoring takes place once defence equipment has been exported.

831
On 30th January last year, the then Foreign Secretary. Robin Cook, said to the Quadripartite Select Committee:
"I have to be candid with the Committee and say, having licensed equipment there is a limit to the extent to which we can then subsequently, when it has left our shores, verify where it is".
Perhaps I may quote from Saferworld's latest briefing, which is backed up by the United Nations Association:
"Without a system of end use monitoring and a process to halt further UK supplies, misuses will continue to occur and the recipients continue to receive more arms and equipment enabling them to commit further human rights violations".
Here I want briefly to mention the case of Israel. I have given the Minister notice of this. I know that Israel is a country to which the Government will apply the strictest controls in any export licensing. Defence exports to Israel are worth about £12.5 million a year, which is a tiny amount in the context of the arms trade and indeed of Israel's own arms industry. The UK has not sold significant equipment such as tanks or aircraft since 1997, although it has sold components for combat helicopters and related technology, small arms and ammunition. I am glad to say that in the year 2000 one application to export CS gas to Israel was turned down. According to a Written Answer given on 3rd July last year to Dr Phyllis Starkey, 84 standard individual export licences were issued covering the export of goods on the military list to Israel between January and May last year.
This is a country which is not only illegally occupying Palestinian territories but is using considerable force of weaponry to enforce the occupation. Apparently, it also uses civilian equipment for house demolition and road building which can in themselves be a form of internal repression.
The position of Her Majesty's Government has been made very clear, both through the Foreign Office and through the DTI. And yet, as I said at Second Reading, the latest annual report on strategic export controls includes equipment licensed for export which has a potentially offensive use to Israel. We are still exporting weapons and equipment without specific limitations or end-use conditions.
I do not doubt the Government's good intentions. I appreciate that they have stated more than once that they will not issue licences where there is a clear risk that the equipment might be used for internal repression. I have also read the Government's response last July to the Select Committee (Cm. 5141) which re-states that position with regard to civilians in South Lebanon.
But the point is that a great deal can happen after exports. This is where the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are intended to be helpful. In due course, possibly on Report, we shall examine the consequences of such amendments for the Government, which should not be exaggerated.
I am slightly concerned, like the right reverend Prelate, to hear the Government's plea of limited resources and the possible need to involve NGOs in the
832
monitoring process. That would be absurd However, at this stage I merely ask the Government to reconsider their present position.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendment No. 21. standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, is in this grouping. I can speak briefly to it, because a great deal of the ground is common to the other two amendments in the grouping and has already been covered. The power to revoke any licence granted under the first four clauses of the Bill is a crucial one.
I understand that the dummy order contains a revocation provision. The amendment would place on the face of the Bill an explicit right for the Government to revoke if, subsequent to the granting of a licence, there is any development which will bring into play the consequences set out in the schedule; namely, adverse consequences as a result of the export of arms or dealing in arms.
The points are simple. The Quadripartite Select Committee recognised the Government's dilemma in granting such licences; namely, the dilemma between the needs of the exporters on the one hand and the needs of arms control on the other.
It is also fair to say that the legal position in relation to licences can become quite tricky. The UK Working Group on Arms, which has done a huge amount of work in relation to the Bill and which has helped many of us in understanding some of the finer points, has taken advice from Matrix Chambers, which has given an opinion to the effect that it would be safer and better for the licence conditions to be set out on the face of the Bill in terms of a power for the Governtnent to impose the conditions set out in Amendment No. 21.
If there is any doubt about someone being able to wriggle out of those conditions because they are imposed not by dint of a power in Clause 6 but as a unilateral imposition by government in their licensing role, any amendment which prevents litigation around that point and enforces the Government's discretion in this regard must surely be to the good. Therefore, the amendment should be considered on those simple grounds.
Lord Haskel: When my noble friend the Minister considers the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I hope that he will bear in mind that, although some may consider the use of arms against the Palestinians to be warfare, others consider it to be a means of dealing with terrorism. The noble Earl said that Israel was using arms for certain purposes, but most people believe that those arms are clearly being used to deal with terrorism.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I accept that the amendments are somewhat tricky to interpret, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. I was pleased to hear

833
what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, had to say about Amendment No. 49, because had he not said it, I would have done so equally forcefully.
Lord Rea: It has been suggested that one of the Government's positions on the follow-up of end-use certificates is that it would waste very limited UK government resources. To quote Nigel Griffiths, the Minister in another place:
"it could send people off on wild goose chases and divert our officers from monitoring properly what is happening".
Such follow-up of arms sales would be a proper role for military attaches in our embassies overseas. One of the roles of military attaches has been to promote arms exports from Britain to the countries in which they are stationed. It seems logical that they should follow up what happens to those arms after they reach the countries concerned.
It would be wrong to say that every arms export must be monitored. Those countries where arms transfers are in most danger of diversion or misuse should be prioritised. If we do not have a military attaché in those countries, there is a good case for appointing one.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments would insert two new clauses about the related issues of end-use monitoring and licence revocation, together with a proposed addition to Clause 6 about licence revocation. The position on both issues is clear. The amendments are not necessary for the simple reason that the Government already have the power to revoke licences and to carry out end-use monitoring and they will continue to have that power under the Bill. I shall expand on those two points.
Under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 and secondary legislation made under it, the Secretary of State has the power to revoke any form of licence, whether open or individual. Article 7(1) of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 refers to the power of revocation. Such revocation might take place when there is clear evidence that an undertaking given by the end-user is likely to be broken, or when the situation in the recipient country has changed significantly after a licence is issued. Revocation might also apply if new information comes to light after a licence has been issued that would have led to the refusal of the application.
We exercise that power. I refer noble Lords to our annual reports. For example, the annual report for 2000 shows that 16 licences were revoked in that year. The appropriate reference can be found on page 15.
Under the Bill, the Government will retain the power to revoke licences. Again, specific provisions will be set out in secondary legislation. The dummy draft orders made available to Parliament last October contained revocation provisions. The dummy draft order on export of goods, transfer of technology and provision of technical assistance—all issues mentioned in the amendment—provides for the revocation of
834
licences in Article 10(5) on page 10. The dummy draft order on trade in controlled goods provides for revocation under Article 5(2) on page 4. The example that we have provided of a dummy draft order giving effect to an embargo includes revocation in Article 4(2) on page 2. The circumstances in which revocation will be considered are the same under the Bill as under existing legislation. All the matters to which the amendments relate are already fully accommodated within the dummy draft orders on the basis of the power contained under the Bill.
We do not need a specific legal provision to allow end-use monitoring of defence exports. Officials already systematically consider whether our overseas posts should make checks on the final customers of controlled goods. That is done as an integral part of the licence application process. Officials will also consider whether follow-up monitoring of certain exports is required. The procedures already in place makes use of best practice in risk assessments. They include standing instructions to posts overseas to be alert to and report on any misuse or diversion of UK-origin defence equipment. Any information from overseas is fed back into the licensing process for use in assessing new licence applications.
We take into account all reliable sources of information about end users—including external organisations, other governments, international bodies and non-governmental organisations. We will be able to continue conducting follow-up monitoring of end-use under the Bill.
We have no evidence that equipment or components manufactured in the UK and licensed for export were used by Israeli forces against civilians in the occupied territories during the recent violence. If any such evidence came to light, we would of course consider it carefully. I reiterate that we are not aware of any such evidence.
None of the three amendments is required because we have the necessary powers and use them in revoking licences. In light of that explanation, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: Before the Minister sits down, I am totally convinced of his personal commitment and have no doubt that we are concerned about the same humanitarian issues. But in this particular context, does my noble friend agree that his answer sounded complacent? For a number of years, a deafening chorus of NGOs—and I was part of it—complained about the misuse of arms in East Timor. The time it took for that to be recognised requires some justification. That occurred under a previous administration but none of us is scoring party points tonight. There is a need to take Amendment No. 20 seriously. The issue needs to be addressed. We have to show more rigour and muscle.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We do share a common view but the Government have all the legislative powers that they need. If there is an issue, it is to do with implementation—which will not be changed by any legislation. There may be a debate about whether

835
any particular administration implemented the measure properly but nothing will change by giving the present Government the power to undertake end-use monitoring.
The Earl of Sandwich: Among the reasons for revocation listed by the Minister was information coming to light over time—which must imply a form of monitoring. We know there is monitoring but it is riot systematised. The amendment only asks the Government to look once more—as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, splendidly said—at the present position. The Minister has simply restated the position of some time ago. Discussion among officials before the next stage would be helpful.
Lord Redesdale: I shall look closely again at the draft dummy order. The issue causes great concern. As the right reverend Prelate correctly pointed out, it would have been easy to check whether Hawks were being used in East Timor for military purposes. A monitoring system mounted on the wings could have clearly shown whether the aircraft had been used in East Timor to repress human rights. That case would have been covered by this amendment.
I do not wish to score party points, but there is a difference between intention and action. The 1997 Labour manifesto contained a commitment to strengthen,
"the end-use of defence exports to prevent diversion to third countries and to ensure that exported equipment is used only on the conditions under which the export licence has been granted".
The Government may now feel that they have sufficient powers, but they did not believe so in 1997. I hope that the Minister will be able to look again at the issue. We certainly intend to raise it again at the next Stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Control powers: supplementary]: [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert "for a period of three years after the granting of a licence"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 6 states that an order may introduce rules that make the keeping of records compulsory by those to whom export licences are granted. I have tabled this probing amendment simply to ask the Government to put on the record the reasons why the dummy orders are inconsistent in the length of time laid down for keeping such records.
The Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order and the Trade in Controlled Goods (Control) Order state that the records shall be kept for three years. Both those orders deal with military exports. However, the Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order requires that records be kept for four years.
On 16th October 2001, in another place, my honourable friend Mr Robert Key asked the Minister—at col. 127 of the Official Report—-to explain that discrepancy. It does seem odd that the world of art exports should be subject to greater bureaucracy than the world of arms exports. The Minister could not offer an answer on that occasion. but he offered to write to my honourable friend. I am simply repeating the question, hoping that, after some months, the Government are now able to offer a stunningly simple and persuasive answer. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I am grateful for that explanation. I was concerned that the amendment requires records to be kept for only three years whereas Financial records must be kept for a good deal longer. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us why the Bill should require that records be kept for a mere three years rather than, say, six years.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall deal first with the amendment and then with the tricky question of three years versus four years. The amendment seeks to ensure that orders under the legislation can require that records be kept for only three years. I shall explain why the Government do not think that that restriction is appropriate.
A number of our export controls derive from our membership of international organisations, in particular the European Community. Those organisations may require exporters to keep records for certain lengths of time. Amendment No. 22 could prevent the Government from fulfilling our European Community obligations and our international commitments, or could prevent the Government from responding to any changes required of the UK. For example, the EC regulation governing exports of dual-use items requires records to be kept for at least three years from the end of the calendar year in which the authorised act—the export or technology transfer— took place. That requirement is therefore reflected in the dummy draft orders that we published last October to indicate how the Government intend to use the powers in the Bill.
Under the proposed amendment the Government would be unable to include this provision and hence unable to require UK companies to comply with the EC regulation. Moreover, the amendment would also prevent the Government from implementing any longer record-keeping requirements which might be proposed by the EC or other international organisations in future. Any failure to provide for the enforcement of directly applicable provisions of Community law can, of course, lead to infraction proceedings being taken by the Commission in the European Court of Justice.
Why are the record-keeping requirements in the dummy draft orders different for cultural and strategic exports? On 19th October my right noble friend Lady Blackstone wrote to the chairman of the Standing Committee in the other place regarding the point raised by the honourable Member for Salisbury,

837
addressing the difference between the DTI and DCMS dummy draft orders in respect of the lengths of time which exporters will be required to keep records of any goods exported under the authority of a general licence. She agreed that it would be sensible for both departments to have the same requirement. Therefore, she was content that any orders made by her department should specify three years for the keeping of records. So now we have what is dear to all civil servants and others-complete consistency across the legislation. Having explained why we think that it is wrong to put a precise time limit in the Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister managed to be precise, simple and persuasive in one fell swoop. I am most grateful to him for putting on the record the explanation provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and for stating that there is now unanimity across the orders. I agree with the Minister that a rigid time limit should not be put on the face of the Bill. I mentioned it merely as a vehicle to obtain an explanation from the Minister. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert ", but such disclosure shall not be permitted except insofar as is necessary in order to monitor or enforce compliance with the order or any licence granted under it, and shall only be permitted on condition that the recipient shall treat such material as confidential"
The noble Baroness said: It is clearly necessary that information may be properly demanded to be kept or provided for the purposes of what I may loosely call the operation of this Bill. The relevant paragraphs are (c) to (f) of subsection (I) of Clause 6. However, paragraph (0 implies that any information contained in the records that are required to be kept under paragraph (c), or provided under paragraphs (d) and (e), may be disclosed to what the paragraphs call persons".
The amendment requires that information obtained under the powers of the Bill shall be used only for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with the Bill and that the recipient shall treat the material as confidential. The reason for this requirement is to comply with the Human Rights Act which seems for some reason to have been overlooked by the draftsman in this particular case.
Perhaps the Committee will recall the Guinness case, and in particular the conviction of Ernest Saunders who was required to give evidence to the inspectors conducting an inquiry under, I believe, the Companies Act. The information that he was compelled to give was then used against him in his subsequent prosecution in breach of his rights against self-incrimination.
This amendment is intended to ensure that records and information will, as I said, be used for the purposes of this Bill and nothing else. There should be no disclosure to potential competitors; no disclosure to other governments or NGOs and no disclosure to other government departments. Here I have in mind the fact that this Bill will largely be administered by Customs and Excise. It would be wrong for information obtained for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of this Bill to be passed on to the VAT department of Customs and Excise. It is correct that any order under this subsection, including the provisions of paragraph (f), is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, bearing in mind how limited such scrutiny is, it is essential that the parameters of the disclosure should be defined within limitations laid down in the primary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This amendment seeks to place conditions on the Secretary of State's power to disclose information obtained through an order under the Bill. The Government require the power to obtain and share information connected to export licensing issues for two reasons. By virtue of its membership of a number of international organisations, the UK is committed to disclosing certain information to these bodies. Specifically, under the UN arms register and the Wassenaar arrangement, we are required to provide details of the numbers of certain categories of military or dual-use goods exported each year. The Government also wish to have the power to exchange information within Government, for example with HM Customs and Excise, for the regulation and enforcement of export controls and investigation or prosecution of offences.
The amendment proposed would restrict the uses for which the Government could share information to monitoring and compliance and require any such information sharing to be in confidence. The result would be to prevent the Government from meeting their international reporting obligations. In view of these arguments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I hear clearly the Minister's response. I shall withdraw the amendment. However, rather than simply stating that the power is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, the provision should add specifically, "because of international agreement" or whatever it may be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) It shall be a defence to any charge under subsection (1)(g) of an offence described wholly or partially by reference to the uses to which any goods, technology or technical assistance may be put that the person charged did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that there was a risk that the goods, technology or technical assistance in question would be put to such uses."
The noble Baroness said: This simple amendment is self-explanatory. It provides a defence for someone who innocently supplies goods, technology or technical assistance in breach of a control order.
Members of the Committee will recall the notorious Matrix Churchill case where tubes were supplied ostensibly for an oil pipeline when it transpired that they were intended for the purposes of a so-called super gun. While providing a defence, this clause imposes an onus of proof on the defendant which I expect will be extremely difficult to discharge. There can be no grounds for creating an absolute offence in circumstances where a person, possibly even a subcontractor, may be relying entirely in good faith on information supplied by his customer. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am inclined to support the amendment. The Minister may tell us that the wording undermines the effectiveness of the licensing procedure. However, with regard to a criminal offence which might bear a sentence of imprisonment of up to 10 years, and where that criminality can be imposed by secondary legislation, it must be right in principle that there should be some intent.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment seeks to provide a defence against charges of committing an offence in relation to an end-use type of control. In such cases the amendment seeks to provide a defence that the supplier did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, about the uses to which the item of assistance would be put. This is essentially a defence based on the level of reasonable knowledge about intended end-uses. The amendment is not required and is inappropriate.
Clause 6 of the Bill illustrates the supplementary powers necessary in relation to the order-making powers. It is for the orders themselves rather than the Bill to spell out both offences and any necessary defences. It would not be appropriate, therefore, nor indeed possible, to provide in the Bill for a defence in respect of offences to be created in secondary legislation but which of course are not created until that secondary legislation has been made.
However, perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that appropriate defences would, of course, be available in respect of offences to be introduced in secondary legislation. We have already made available to Parliament dummy draft orders under the Bill which illustrate how we propose to use the powers in the Bill. The dummy draft orders and existing secondary legislation contain provisions about offences and penalties. It may be helpful to refer to that now.
Taking an example from existing controls, the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000, which deal with enforcement and offences related to Community legislation, specify that offences arise only where the person concerned has been informed by Government, is aware or suspects that an item is or may be intended for use in connection with weapons of
840
mass destruction. In the case of "suspicion" the regulations further make clear that the person should make,
"all reasonable enquiries as to their proposed use"
that is, dual-use items
"and is satisfied that they will not be so used".
That language is reproduced in Article 4(4) of the dummy draft order on export of goods, transfer of technology and provision of technical assistance. Similar principles would apply in relation to new controls. In addition, general provisions on indictable offences and penalties are set out in Article 15 of that same dummy draft order, which states:
"Any person knowingly concerned in the transfer of software or technology, or in the attempted transfer of software or technology, with intent to evade any prohibiton or restriction shall be guilty of an offence".
That makes it clear that knowledge and intent are required for an offence to be committed. I hope that it is therefore clear that the objective of the proposed amendment will be dealt with in secondary legislation. But for the reasons that I have mentioned, we cannot properly include in primary legislation a defence that relates to offences not created by that primary legislation.
I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be reassured by what I have said and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall withdraw the amendment with the leave of the Committee, but II am not happy with the explanation. Although I understand what the Minister is saying—I shall read his remarks carefully—I nevertheless feel that it is not appropriate that such matters should be dealt with by secondary legislation. The matter should be clearly spelt out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 10, leave out "may"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 26 to 30, which refer to Clause 6, which, as Members of the Committee will recollect, gives the Government the power to make supplementary provisions with regard to licences granted under the first clauses of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 6, to which the amendments relate, states that "an order may" provide yet further arrangements.
The purport of the six amendments is to require an order made under Clause 6(1) to apply to the Crown, leaving discretion with regard to the other provisions of Clause 6(2). We believe that the orders that may be promulgated under Clause 6 should apply to the Crown, not as a matter of discretion but compulsorily. There is no reason to exempt the Crown from the position of every other citizen whether corporate or individual.
It is notable that the Scott report recommended that the list of international organisations arid Crown agencies exempted from export controls should be
abolished. It is also the case that the Quadripartite Select Committee in its report of May last year recommended that,
"consideration is given to the desirability of ending the blanket exemption from controls of Government and its agencies as exporters of licensable goods and technology".
That is the consideration that we are giving the matter tonight. It is clear that the Select Committee was biased in favour of the amendments that are before this Committee. The Government are a major dealer in weaponry and defence equipment both to and from other governments. The amendments would ensure that the provisions that are to be applied under Clause 6 and the earlier clauses will apply to government as well. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take seriously the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I imagine that my noble friend will argue that there is no need to control most of those exports because they involve providing essential equipment to our Armed Forces in connection with important international defence commitments such as peacekeeping. No one underestimates the significance of that. Does the Minister accept that that is only one aspect of the government transfers issue and that there are also a number of other aspects? They include, for example, the sales of Challenger tanks to Jordan and the largest-ever deal, the Al Yamamah deal, which was, after all, a government deal. I find it difficult to believe that in view of the logic of the Government's position, they do not feel that such arrangements should be open to the same scrutiny as any other arrangements.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The reason why these provisions are included has perhaps been misunderstood. As I explain the situation, it should become clear that the problem that has been raised is rather different from the intention that lies behind the provisions.
Clause 6 sets out the various provisions that may be specified in orders that are made under the Bill. The amendments would provide that the matters that are specified in the orders should apply to the Crown. The substantive amendment appears to propose the replacement of "may" in line 10 with "shall". I shall focus on that amendment in responding. The other amendments are consequential on it.
The position is that controls on the export of most classes of goods fall within Community competence under the common commercial policy of the Treaty of Rome. As a limited exception to that, member states have the power to impose controls in respect of exports and transfers on defence items. Member states also have, in exceptional circumstances, the ability to impose controls for other significant reasons, such as public security. At the moment, our Community obligations are given effect under the European Communities Act 1972. By enabling the Crown to be bound in respect of EU obligations, Clause 6(2)(a)
842
reflects existing powers and, as the main dummy draft order illustrates, will allow us to consolidate current export control legislation made under both the 1939 Act and the European Communities Act. That consolidation is a step which we believe will be helpful to business. That is, if you like, the "technical" reason for Clause 6(2)(a).
The Government's own exports tend to be those items of essential equipment that are used by our Armed Forces or in connection with important international collaborative defence projects. There will also be items that are exported for use for international development purposes, such as equipment used for mine clearance. It must be for the government of the day to carry out their various operations in pursuance of announced policy efficiently and effectively. Clearly, it makes no sense for the Government to be required to licence their own exports for those defence and other essential purposes. To impose such a requirement would create unnecessary bureaucracy and in some cases could hamper our ability to respond quickly. At the same time, the Government make information available in the annual reports, which gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise export decisions.
In view of that explanation and the fact that the matter relates to our treaty obligations, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I shall deal with the only easy point first; that is, that the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny on these matters ex post facto is, I have to say, nigh on nil.
On the Minister's argument as a whole, I shall need to read his response carefully. He will perhaps accept that his answer was worthy of an advanced seminar in international law. I am not going to tread where others would not go, except to say—perhaps Members of the Committee will find this totally superfluous—that the nature of legislation these days is illustrated rather well by this provision. I make no criticism of the Minister or what he said, but the passage of legislation such as this is somewhat difficult when the issues are so contorted. I hope that he will allow me to come back to him at the Bill's next stage if I am dissatisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 30 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 19. after second -different" insert "cases and different".
The noble Lord said: This amendment consists of a technical drafting change, which I hope Members of the Committee will agree raises no new issues of policy. At present, Clause 6(2)(e) illustrates that orders made under Clauses 1 to 4—that is, orders imposing export, technology transfer, technical assistance or trade controls—may make different provision for different
circumstances. For example, orders could set different restrictions on exports to embargoed and non-embargoed destinations.
The proposed amendment makes clear that control orders can also make different provision for different cases. An example of such a scenario would be to make an exception to an order imposing an arms embargo in order to allow equipment to be supplied to peacekeeping forces or to allow vintage arms or aircraft to be exported to museums. Clearly, that is a subject dear to some people's hearts. In view of that explanation, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the amendment is necessary and that they will feel able to support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert
"(3) No such order shall exclude the right of an applicant for a licence to apply to the High Court in appropriate cases for a judicial review of any refusal to grant such a licence or the imposition of any condition or conditions in such licence notwithstanding any other rights of appeal that may exist under this Act or any order made hereunder.".
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to deal with an omission from the Bill. The licensing procedure that will be employed will undoubtedly include some right of applicants to appeal against a refusal of a licence or the terms that it contains. Such appeal will be internally within the department but will be dealt with by an official who is higher up the ladder than the person who dealt with it in the first instance.
I do not believe that that can simply be the end of the matter. An aggrieved applicant must have the right of appeal to the courts as a last resort in appropriate circumstances. An application for a judicial review cannot be launched lightly. In recent years, since this process has become more frequent, although it is still very uncommon, it is circumscribed by stringent rules of the court. The making of such an order is even rarer because of the strict criteria which the courts apply before granting one.
If only on the grounds of the substantial costs involved, it is impossible that the amendment would unleash a flurry of litigation. That is especially the case as only a small number of licences are refused—probably because applicants have more sense than to make hopeless applications in the first place.
The Bill, if enacted, would give the Secretary of State very wide powers to make orders and amend them in areas of which Parliament is still not fully informed because at present a fundamental part of the legislation, in the form of dummy orders, is still out for consultation.
The right to apply for a judicial review is well established in law. But we do not have a written constitution binding on the Government. The amendment seeks to ensure that the wide powers given to the Secretary of State to rule by statutory order will not be used by him to deprive anyone of a right which
844
every citizen should have automatically; namely, the right of recourse to the courts to protect him against the unwarranted actions of a very powerful government. By accepting the amendment, the Government would make it clear that there will be no erosion of the rights of citizens in the cases covered by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment seeks to include in the Bill a provision relating to the right to apply for judicial review to the High Court where a decision is made not to grant a licence or where any conditions have been imposed on a licence.
In this case, I do not believe that the amendment would add anything to the Bill because it is not required. The key point concerning the amendment is that it would include in the Bill a provision that is unnecessary. Although now codified in Section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, judicial review is a common law remedy. It may be used by those with a "sufficient interest" to challenge the exercise or non-exercise of powers by a public body, which includes the Secretary of State, on grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
Unless specifically disapplied by statute—the Bill does not include any such provision—a claim may be brought by judicial review against any decision by the Secretary of State either to grant or not to grant a licence or to impose conditions upon the award of a licence.
Indeed it may reassure the Committee to know that to include in the Bill, or indeed an order made under it, a provision that ousted a person's right to apply for judicial review in relation to decisions taken by the Secretary of State under this Bill would be likely to breach the Human Rights Act and human rights convention. This underlines the point that there is no need for this amendment to protect the right to judicial review in relation to the exercise of powers under this Bill.
However, judicial review is not an appeal or a rehearing of the substantive decision taken by the Secretary of State. A full review of the substantive decision may be undertaken by the DTI on application. That is an important point because, as the noble Baroness may know, judicial review is an extensive burden for someone to take on. A review undertaken by the DTI on application is a mechanism open to all applicants, whose licence has been refused, revoked or suspended. It includes the ability for the applicant to seek a personal hearing and to be legally represented. The appeal would be determined by a senior person who was not involved with the original application and decision. This system exists now and will continue to exist. Subsequent to the appeal. if still dissatisfied, the aggrieved person would be able to make a claim for judicial review.

845
Because the right of judicial review already exists, and is unaffected by the order-making powers in the Bill, it is unnecessary to include such a provision in the Bill. I would, therefore, invite the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert
"(4) An order under any of the preceding provisions of this Act shall (unless there shall be in force a general order applying the requirements set out in subsection (3)) make provision

(a) for a prescribed form of application in which descriptive details of the goods or technology in question, their value and the identity and address of the proposed consignee, and if known, both the potential uses and the actual uses by the consignee are set out;

(b) for the time after receipt of an application in which further information can be sought by the licensing authority to supplement the information contained in the application;

(c) prescribing a time (which may be varied between different types of applications or between different types of goods and technology) after the receipt of the application and any further information when an application shall be deemed to have been granted unless refused;

(d) for written reasons for refusal of any application to be given to the applicant, provided that if the refusal is for security reasons that fact should be stated, and details of either sort of reason shall contain sufficient information to enable the applicant, if so advised, to challenge the reasons on appeal; and

(e) prescribing an appeals procedure, either by way of a hearing or by written representations or both, and for reasons for the dismissal of any appeal, subject to security considerations, to be made known to the exporter in writing.

(5) In any case where a licence is deemed to have been granted pursuant to subsection (4)(c), the Secretary of State shall provide the applicant on request with a written document confirming that the export of the goods or technology is authorised."
The noble Baroness said: It is no exaggeration for me to say that Amendment No. 33 is of fundamental importance to the Bill. However, I can explain it simply and briefly. It is fundamental because it goes to the heart of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill.
Your Lordships will recall, as has been mentioned several times in this House and in the other place, that the need for the Bill follows the findings of the Scott report. That report made a number of specific recommendations that were expected by all parties. It specifically recommended certain procedural steps and matters to be included in any export licence. When I first read the Bill, I was surprised that nowhere are those recommendations carried into effect.
The amendment simply sets out those recommendations and requires them to be incorporated in any order made under the clause. That would be achieved in one of two ways, either by
setting out those requirements in detail in each order that is made, or by the Secretary of State making what is called a general order that sets out the requirements which are then incorporated by reference in each specific order that is made.
I invite your Lordships to look at the six Scott recommendations that are set out in the amendment. The first is that there should be a standard form of licence application. That would mean that there would be no question of delay on the grounds of inadequate details being supplied.
Secondly, there should be a fixed time for the authorities to require additional information. In other words, this provision is to concentrate the minds of those dealing with the application.
Thirdly, unless there is a refusal of the licence, one should fix a time after which an application will be deemed to have been granted. That too is designed to prevent lengthy delays, the result of which is lost business either because an order is cancelled or because a potential customer goes elsewhere, because he knows that his order is likely to be delayed excessively. There is urgent need for an obligation on the government departments involved to proceed expeditiously. We have already heard of the failure of the DTI to achieve its targets for the issue of licences by almost 50 per cent. The Defence Manufacturers Association tell me that it is aware of cases where export licences have been approved by both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and returned to the DTI for final processing where further delays have then occurred. There has been one instance in which this further delay of two weeks cost the exporter concerned the business, as the customer cancelled the contract in frustration at the delay.
The DMA also reports another case in which the exporter knows that the MoD and the FCO gave their advice in favour of approval last September, but the licence is still awaited. Apart from a standard time after which a licence shall be deemed to be granted, as I propose in subsection (3) of the amendment, I believe that a specific time should be set in the regulations for the DTI to issue a licence after it has received a positive recommendation from its advisory departments.
Fourthly, an explanation should be given for any refusal of a licence unless of course there is a security reason for not giving one. In either case, as the amendment explains, this is to enable the unsuccessful applicant to appeal should he wish to do so.
The fifth recommendation is that the Secretary of State shall prescribe an appeals procedure.
Lastly, where a licence is deemed to be granted because of an absence of response from the department, the Secretary of State shall grant written proof that the applicant is free to export the goods in question.
In simple terms, the amendment is really a test for the Government. Either they accept the Scott recommendations, as they say they do, or they want to reserve the right to depart from them. If they accept the
recommendations then they will also accept this amendment which carries those recommendations into law, as I believe they deserve to be. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Judith: I find the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as wonderfully seductive as ever in her argument, but there is only one point in her argument on which I agree with her on this amendment; that is, that it goes to the heart of the Bill. In saying that, we should think back to what the right reverend Prelate was saying earlier in our deliberations.
In the past I have been a member of the defence ministerial team. All of us surely see defence in the modern context as preserving peace and security. The evidence which has accumulated in recent decades has demonstrated repeatedly that arms are very dangerous and disruptive to peace and security.
I do not believe that we will get our export policy on arms right until we get a change of mindset which says that here should be a presumption that one does not export arms unless there is a very good reason for exporting them that makes sense in terms of a commitment to international peace and security; hence the need for the other points that we have been discussing on previous amendments. Therefore, in great affection I would suggest to the noble Baroness that she has the matter around exactly the wrong way; that there should in fact be a system of deemed refusal. Of course very often it is the most complicated, the most risky and the most intriguing deals that take the longest for the Government to evaluate and to reach a final conclusion on.
I suggest—I am sure that she does not intend it—that the noble Baroness is putting pressure on the Government to gallop into decisions which might be very ill-advised.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment seeks to acid a number of detailed matters to the Bill. In particular, it requires orders to make provision for a prescribed form of licence application; a time within which any additional information must be sought by the licensing authority; a time after which a licence would be deemed to have been granted unless refused; written reasons for the refusal of a licence application which should be sufficient to enable the applicant to make an appeal; and prescribing an appeals procedure. Proposed subsections (4)(c) and (5) would, in effect, require the Secretary of State to issue a licence by default if a decision has not been made within a prescribed timescale. These various provisions concern procedures, or, in the case of licensing by default, a fundamentally different approach to export licensing.
The Government set out their views about what are essentially procedural matters in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, published in 1998. I shall return shortly to the substantive arguments against the approach represented by these amendments. A more general point that I should make is that the
848
Government consider that such detailed matters do not need to be set out in primary legislation and that, therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.
As noble Lords may be aware, the matters covered by the Bill have already been the subject of a long and detailed process of consultation. Many of the issues raised by this amendment have already been consulted upon and considered carefully by the Government, with our conclusions about them included in last year's further consultation on the draft Bill.
The Government's 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, which paved the way for the Bill currently before the Committee, addressed the issue of procedures in detail. It stated:
"The Government considers that there could be merit in setting out the basic elements of the licensing process in primary legislation but not the detailed procedures. The latter are. in the Government's view, best included either in secondary legislation, or in guidance material as at present, or a mixture of the two".
We consider that Clause 6 as it stands does indeed provide the basic power to deal with the necessary procedural matters. The Government consider that the issues included in the amendment are detailed procedures. Therefore, we would reiterate the point made in the White Paper that such details do not belong in primary legislation.
I shall now comment on the substance of what the amendment is seeking to do. The White Paper also dealt with the question of licensing by default, giving written reasons for refusing export licences and appeals—all matters covered in the amendment. Here again, the Government would reiterate the views expressed in the White Paper. On the question of licensing by default, the White Paper stated:
"The Government has considered this issue carefully and has concluded that licensing by default should not be adopted as it would introduce a risk of licences being granted that were contrary to the UK's international obligations or the Government's own policy".
That remains our position. A further point is that the previous Conservative government, in responding to the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, commented on the question of prescribing time limits, as proposed in subsection (4)(c) of this amendment, as follows:
"Prescribed time limits for the consideration of licence applications could be particularly difficult given the complexity of the issues raised by some applications and would, in practice, be likely to result in an increase in refusals in borderline cases".
We agree that an increase in the number of refusals in borderline cases is the only responsible approach where time limits apply. That does not seem to be a desirable outcome, particularly from industry's perspective.
On giving written reasons for refusing a licence application, the White Paper also explained that we already give such reasons that are as full as possible. However, in some cases a broad explanation only can be given for reasons of national security, as acknowledged in subsection (4)(d) of the amendment.
As to appeals, the Government have said that they intend to set out procedures in secondary legislation. Appeals procedures were in fact included in the

849
dummy draft orders made available to Parliament last October. In particular, Article 14 of the dummy draft order on the Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance, and Article 8 of that on Trade in Controlled Goods, dealt with appeals.
Subsection (4)(a) and (b) of the amendment underlines the general point that I have made about it not being appropriate to include powers to prescribe detailed matters in the Bill. Prescribing the form of the application is essentially an administrative matter, but for EU-derived controls is also a matter of compliance with the EU form of application. Applications will remain relatively unchanged over time, but may need to be updated occasionally. It seems unnecessary to specify such a power in the Bill. The time allowed to seek further information from licence applicants is also essentially an administrative matter and one that will vary in individual cases, depending on the complexity of the proposed export or transfer. Because of the nature of the export control process with regard to strategic items applications, the further information supplied has to be circulated to all other interested departments. There must, therefore, be no constraints on the Government's ability to require information about a proposed export or transfer. The Government aim to deal with all applications expeditiously, but sometime delays can occur, especially if a number of requests need to be made and the applicant is slow to respond.
As far as concerns the performance of the Department of Trade and Industry, we are working hard to reduce processing times for licence applications. In 2000, 57 per cent of standard individual export licence applications were processed within the target. So far, the figure for 2001 is 60 per cent. Of course, unfortunately, a small proportion of cases raise especially difficult issues, and they may take longer to process. All long-standing cases are regularly reviewed by officials to ensure that they are progressed. It is not right—as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, would have it—that we should in such cases allow people to have the export licence by default. Equally, I am not certain that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that they should be turned down by default. They are difficult decisions, and the most important thing is that they are properly considered. That may take more time than is ideal, but the important thing is that such important decisions are given proper scrutiny.
The Bill contains all the powers necessary to modernise our existing export control regime. It would be a mistake to encumber it with a multiplicity of specific procedural duties and deal with matters that are best left either to the existing order-making powers in the Bill or to guidance. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall withdraw the amendment this evening, but I cannot promise the Minister that I will not bring it back. It would convince me not to bring it back if the Minister were to consider some of the points that I raised and if he were to come
850
up with an amendment that would satisfy me just a little more. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Although it was flattering to be told by him that I was seductive, clearly I was not seductive enough, or he would not have said that he disagreed with absolutely everything that I said except for one point about the title.
The important point that I was making to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was that I, too, do not want to see arms sent to all the wrong places and that I, too, believe in licences and controls. That is why we support the Bill; there is no question about that. We think that it is excellent. However, I differ a little from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and am on the side of the Minister, in that I think that a balance must be struck. There is no question but that we rely a lot on our defence industry. It is important that suppliers who are doing the job properly and correctly should be able to get on with their business.
I was making the point that the advisory bodies to the Department of Trade and Industry—for example, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office—will, in many cases, go through things carefully with a fine-tooth comb and come to the conclusion that the licences ought to be granted. The matter then goes back to the Department of Trade and Industry, which is where the delay comes in. As a result, our companies lose the business, but the arms are still exported; it is just that they are exported by another company, probably not in this country. That is a pity. We must strike a balance. I felt that my amendment would do that, because it followed the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote.
Having said that, I am sure that the officials in the DTI could examine the process and see which parts they could help to expedite, where it was necessary and safe to do so. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment although I hope that the matter will be discussed later, perhaps in a different form.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: Before the noble Baroness resumes her seat, I must obviously be a little more careful with my language. I wanted to ask her whether I could tempt her to go a little further. However, the noble Baroness seemed to indicate that she agreed with me that there should be a presumption in the interests of peace and international security that arms were not exported unless there was a good reason for exporting them. If she can confirm that that is the position of the Opposition, it will he immensely encouraging.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The position of the Opposition is that, if there was a reason for the arms not to be stopped, they should be allowed to be exported. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. I am clarifying what I believe the position to be. We have no objection to the licences, to the control, and all the other matters that are appropriate and that also take into consideration the concerns of the right reverend Prelate; that is, they should not go all over without consideration. Having said that, when it is

851
appropriate, export should not be held up by one department when another department has gone through the procedure carefully.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rediesdale Lord Rediesdale moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that adequate financial provision is made for the granting and regulation of export licences for objects of cultural interest."
The noble Lord said: We on these Benches finally reach an amendment of our own on cultural interests. This is a probing amendment directed at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It seeks to test whether adequate provision has been made for the DCMS to undertake the requirements placed on it by the Bill.
I say that because, as has already been pointed out in earlier amendments, Britain has an extremely large art market and one of the biggest antiquities markets in the world[. However, the DCMS has a small team to deal with licensing. I hope that the Minister can give an indication of how that team is to be expanded; otherwise, the issuing of licensing on time which affects other areas of the Bill—the export of arms—might affect the export of cultural items for loans to exhibitions, galleries or even for sale.
The other aspect that particularly concerns me is that of policing the market place. Objects of cultural interest. especially archaeological items, can be procured illicitly and traded through on-line market places. A number of such sites exist and what is worrying about them is that objects that one assumes have a British context are put on the web for sale in dollars without at the moment any need for an export control licence. I believe that under the provisions of the Bill it will be the role of the DCMS not only to police this market, but also to make those who are putting items up for sale aware of their obligations under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, into the cultural fold. He has of course raised an extremely serious issue in relation to the availability of staff and funding to make the system work effectively. I join him in inviting the Minister to give an explanation of how there will be sufficient establishment to make the controls within the Bill have real teeth where they need to bite. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is right to point out some of the worries in relation to illicit items being offered for sale on the net, and obviously that will be an expanding market in the technological future.
In addition, perhaps I may ask the Minister a related question. When I looked at Amendment No. 34 I felt it raised more than the issues to which he addressed himself. It also raises the issue of what happens if and when the reviewing committee on art recommends to the Government that an export licence shall be delayed until a time when perhaps money can be found to "rescue it for the nation", to use common parlance.
852
That is the reality of what happens if the Waverley system kicks in effectively. It means that the Heritage Lottery Fund or other funds are approached to see whether money can be obtained. So, however active the officials may be in trying to police the system and ensure that illegal activity does not take place, the difficulty is that where legal exports are taking place, it may well be that there is not enough money to save those potentially legal exports for the national system.
Those who have read the reviewing committee's reports over the past few years will be as concerned as I am to note that it believes there is not enough funding in the system to save existing treasures. At page 2 of the 1999–2000 report it was suggested to the committee that the Secretary of State's expert advisers have been so demotivated by the relatively small number of important Waverley items that have been saved for the nation mainly as a result of lack of funds—that they were not even bothering to refer items to the review committee in the hope that they could be saved.
Indeed, in the previous year's report for 1998–99, at page 8 paragraph 7, the committee stated that,
"it appeared to the Advisory Council this year that there had been little progress since the Committee's Report of 1997–98, in which the efficacy of a system that was not able to retain in the country a greater number of deferred items was questioned. The then Committee's remark continued therefore to have resonance".
The issue of funding goes rather wider than that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in. his explanation of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the points I have made.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, welcomed the Liberal Democrats to the debate. It gave her the opportunity to raise a much wider perspective than the one countenanced in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. However, I shall do my best to answer her.
I shall be slightly negative at first—I shall ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in due course—but, before I sit down, I shall he reasonably positive about certain aspects of the issues he raised and I shall say a word or two about the issues raised by the noble Baroness.
The purpose of Clause 6(2) is to make further provision in respect of the order-making power of the Bill. The amendment makes reference to the financial provision to be provided by the Secretary of State, but not to how the order-making powers themselves might be exercised. There is no connection between the noble Lord's requirement and how the power might he operated. We fear that this would introduce an ambiguity into Clause 6(2)—which has a specific purpose in regard to the Bill—and that would he undesirable.
The noble Lord will recognise that we appreciate the thrust of certain aspects of the amendment—namely, it is necessary that there should be sufficient resources available to police certain aspects of the Bill. It should be noted that two years ago the Minister for the Arts at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport established an advisory panel on illicit trade. We

853
referred to its functions earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was in his place. He, of course, is a member of that panel.
The Minister welcomed the recommendations of the panel made to him in December 2000 for regulation of the export licensing system. As a result, additional staff have been appointed to the cultural property unit of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. So additional resources have been provided for this necessary work.
The Government are well aware of the need for adequate financial provision for the DTI's export control.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for giving way. Additional staff have been provided, but, from an answer given at Second Reading, I believe that the additional staff number two. In the department's eyes, is that realistic in view of the workload that will be imposed by the Bill?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The staff were appointed in response to the needs of the review committee, the Panel on Elicit Trade, to which I referred. The staff derive their work from ensuring that they fulfil the obligations generated by the work of that panel.
The noble Lord is right. This is not just a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is also a question of the work of the DTI's Export Control Organisation. The Government are well aware of the fact that the Bill will require adequate provision to ensure that its provisions are carried through.
The Export Control Organisation has benefited from increased manpower and resources over the past few years. The Government will continue to ensure that it is adequately resourced to meet its responsibilities, including what we all recognise are the new responsibilities under the Bill.
That does not allow me to go quite so far as the noble Baroness would want. She opened up the issue of necessary resources to ensure that the cultural treasures of this country are sufficiently sustained. First, we all recognise that that is a plea for a "bottomless pit-, if ever one were heard of, in terms of provision. I think that the noble Baroness will generously recognise that the funding and purchase of cultural goods deferred as a result of the review committee is not a matter for the Secretary of State but for those wanting to carry out the purchase.
Therefore, in all honesty, I do not think that that particular contribution—valued as ever, and proof of the Opposition's determination to ensure that the Government fulfil their remit with regard to the arts—relates directly to the provisions in the Bill. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be accurate in referring to the sources of funding available for saving works of art. Does he agree that the level of funding available to the
854
Heritage Lottery Fund is indeed reliant to some extent on the share of the lottery pot available to it? That share is determined by government policy in relation, for example, to the New Opportunities Fund.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Most good things in this country are a matter of government policies, as the noble Baroness will recognise.
Of course I recognise the Government's responsibility in this area. I merely suggest that this is not the burden of the amendment, nor indeed this dimension of the Bill. In fairness to the mover of the amendment, it is only right to point out that, valuable though the noble Baroness's contribution to our cultural well-being always is, it is not strictly relevant to the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: This is a probing amendment. Finding a slot in the Bill in which to place it was difficult enough. I realise that in its present form it is flawed. I welcome the positive response by the noble Lord, but it is a matter that will need to be reviewed on a regular basis, considering the workload that could be envisaged in such a growing field. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"TEMPORARY EXPORT LICENCES
(1) Any order which is made under section I shall include provision for the activity to be authorised by a temporary export licence.
(2) A "temporary export licence" is one which authorises goods to leave the United Kingdom on a short-term temporary basis for the purposes of exhibition or demonstration during which time the goods remain under the control of the UK exporter.
(3) Any application for a temporary export licence shall be granted within 20 working days from the lodging of the application (or such extended time as the applicant may agree) and if it shall not be so granted, unless it is refused it shall be deemed to have been granted and the provisions of section 6(5) shall apply."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is intended to correct a serious problem faced by the defence industry. As was mentioned at Second Reading, major delays are being incurred in the granting of export licences. Only 57 per cent are dealt with within the agreed target date. However, the situation is even more serious when it comes to granting the licences for exports governed by the present legislation for the purposes of taking part in exhibitions or of demonstrating defence material and technical material to potential customers. Timing in such matters is critical. Delay can prevent the applicant from participating in a trade show or demonstrating a particular piece of equipment to a potential customer before a competitor can jump in and get the business.
Very simply, the amendment defines a temporary export licence and then stipulates that it must be granted or refused within 20 working days, which is the
target time for normal licences. If it is not granted or refused within that time, it is deemed to have been granted and the applicant is entitled to receive the necessary paperwork.
The amendment is essential for the benefit of an important export trade, which has repercussions not merely on an order that may be lost, but also on the decisions of other governments, which may follow the lead of one customer. I also remind your Lordships that the issue has repercussions on the unit price of similar equipment purchased by our forces. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment would add a new clause requiring orders under Clause 1 specifically to provide for authorisation under a temporary export licence to cover short-term, temporary exports for exhibition or demonstration overseas. Such temporary export licences would be deemed to have been granted if they had not been refused within 20 days of application, unless the period was extended by agreement with the applicant.
As I explained on Amendment No. 33, the Government consider that detailed procedural matters do not need to be set out in primary legislation. More importantly, the amendment would be wrong in principle. It would have similar consequences to part of Amendment No. 33, in that it would require the granting of a temporary licence after a specified period—in this case 20 days. Such licensing by default would result in the Government turning down applications in borderline cases. I therefore refer to the points that I made on Amendment No. 33.
The published dummy draft orders relating to the Bill include broad provisions for the Secretary of State to grant export licences, which would allow the granting of temporary licences. It is the Government's practice to grant temporary licences in appropriate circumstances, including to cover exports for exhibitions and demonstration. The annual report on strategic export controls, in reporting on licensing decisions, indicates where temporary licences have been issued. The Government have no plans to stop issuing temporary licences. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister said that the amendment would be wrong in principle. That makes me realise that he is not going to suggest that the provision might go into the regulations instead. I understand that temporary licences are granted from time to time to meet certain needs. The fact is that licences are supposed to be granted within 20 days. It is important for the DTI to realise that time is essential for a temporary licence. As 20 days is the specified time, there ought to be a mechanism to ensure that 20 days will be sufficient for temporary licences for exhibitions and the other purposes that I mentioned. There is no point in having a target of 20 days if it cannot be met even for temporary licences for specific purposes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Annual reports]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert "ending 31st December"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. These are probing amendments about two issues. First, will the new format for annual reports have a constructive result? If so, how? I ask that in a positive frame of mind. I expect there to be an advantage to Parliament in the change of format for the report. Secondly, what are the implications of the provisions for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art?
Clause 9 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on controls of objects of cultural interest. On Second Reading, the Minister said:
"That report will cover cases considered by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art which are currently presented by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in a separate annual report to Parliament".—[Official Report, 8/1/ 2002; col. 464.1
Will the Secretary of State make a Statement to the House and be subject to questions when the report is presented or will that document merely be laid. before the House? What else will be in the report? Will it be a report by the Secretary of State in addition to the annual report of the reviewing committee or will the annual report to Parliament merely serve as a substitute for the report of the reviewing committee that is currently published? Will the report be available free of charge to the public on the department's website?
In the other place on 8th November, the Parliamentary Secretary gave outline information on the publication of reports, saying that the Government will ensure that the annual report on strategic exports will be available free of charge from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. He did not make the same commitment with regard to the art report. Why not? Was that an oversight?
As a result of the plans to bring forward the annual report, what will be the role and remit of the Advisory Council on the Export of Works of Art after the Bill is enacted? I am aware that the department is currently undertaking a quinquennial review of the reviewing committee's work, for completion by 30th June. Will that review be published or will it be an internal document—as is often the case with quinquennial reviews?
Amendment No. 36 inserts in the Bill that the annual report would cover the period 1st January to 31st December to provide consistency in the presentation of reports—a bit of a straitjacket, to make sure that we receive them. Amendment No. 39 requires the report to be published three months after the end of the report year at the latest. It would he better if the report were published earlier. At present, the Government simply say that the report will be published as soon as practicable. That seems sloppy and could encourage delay.
The reviewing committee's latest report should cover the period to the end of last June. I am intrigued that it appears not to have been published. It may be that the Library and I have committed an oversight. The department's website—which has never published the report but has always mentioned it in the past and presented extracts—makes no reference. We were told that the report would be published by the end of January at the latest. When might that report appear?
Amendment No. 40 would encourage the Secretary of State to produce the report in proper time. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to give an explanation in person to Parliament if the report is published late—or, in ministerial terms, very late. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Clause 9 provides for the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on the workings of the Act. Subsection (I)(a) refers to the export of objects of cultural interest, whereas Clause 9(1)(b) refers to
"other matters relating to the operation of this Act".
I find that funny. I am curious as to why those two aspects are separate, rather than covered by a simple requirement to report on all orders under subsection (1). Is it significant that items of cultural interest come first and defence equipment second? Given the Bill's purposes following the Scott report, that seems the wrong way round. If the Minister cannot deal with the point right away, I should be happy for him to write to me between now and the next stage.
On the substance of the amendment, however, I have to point out that the clause is not specific about what the report must say. I remember when I was in a business partnership with a multinational American company which demanded that I send it a monthly report on the operation that I was running. My first succinct report read, "Everything is going OK". That was factually correct and fully comprehensive, but the lack of detail did not please that company in the least. Nevertheless, it never again asked me to submit such a report. So there is something to be said for such an approach.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on a matter that is of vital interest to exporters of defence equipment and technology. It would also be an indicator of the department's speed and performance in handling licence applications. As your Lordships are aware from earlier debates on the Bill, the DTI's performance has fallen woefully below the targets, to the detriment of exporters, both in the delays in their being able to accept orders and in losing business altogether to overseas competitors. Being required to place their performance on the record in their report will, I am sure, concentrate the minds of those charged with the responsibility for dealing with applications for export licences.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment stipulates that no details of temporary export licences shall be included, which is a separate issue from that raised in paragraph (a). The provision is included at the specific request of
858
the defence industry as disclosure of such matters could disclose commercially sensitive material to competitors by telling them who is exhibiting or demonstrating what to whom and where.
I have often been accused by Ministers opposite of proposing amendments that are too prescriptive. In this case, I plead guilty to being prescriptive—but not too prescriptive. The public and exporters are entitled to know how well the department is doing, and, armed with the facts, Members of both Houses must be able to call the Secretary of State to account. Perhaps Ministers will bear in mind that if they do not accept the statutory obligation that the provision calls for, they will have to answer in a different way, at Question Time.
I hope that the Minister will either accept this constructive amendment as it is drafted or say that the Government can do much better and will table their own amendment on Report.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My noble friend Lord Redesdale and I tabled Amendments Nos. 48 and 41 which are in this group. My noble friend, however, has had to hurry off to the bedside of his very expectant spouse. I think that that demonstrates the relevance of the report having to be laid within nine months. I am also afraid that our two amendments make a rather wimpish pair compared with the much more rigorous and vigorous amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, which provide for a three-month period. Amendment No. 37, too, is a good deal more brisk than our foppish amendments. I shall therefore retreat behind those of the Official Opposition.
Lord Judd: Before my noble friend the Minister replies, may I assure him that many of us are very satisfied with the current situation and would regard any retreat from covering temporary licences as a blow to transparency? Of course temporary licences should be covered; they may be temporary, but they are real and should be subject to scrutiny. More importantly, temporary licences give an indication of trends, enabling the discussion on whether the trend is right or wrong to be opened up considerably. They are therefore very important to the cause of transparency. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not be swayed by this amendment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: These grouped amendments seek to clarify and make statutory provision for the content and timing of publication of the annual reports on cultural and strategic exports. The annual reports on strategic export controls each cover a calendar year, and we intend to continue this practice under the Bill. However, the Government do not feel that it is necessary or appropriate to specify in primary legislation that reports should be published in respect of each calendar year.
As for the speed of publication of the annual reports, the Government are committed to publishing the annual report on strategic exports as soon as possible after the year to which it refers. The 1999 and

859
2000 annual reports were published on 21st July 2000 and 20th July 2001 respectively, well within the nine month target proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. In this case pregnancy was somewhat shorter. However, the annual reports came to 350 pages—that is the size of a small baby. Therefore, those who produced the reports did well to do so within the time that they did. The 1999 and 2000 annual reports each weighed in at around 350 pages, the bulk of which consisted of tables showing types and numbers of licences granted. That was a reasonable performance.
Following introduction of the new controls on trafficking and brokering and technical assistance. yet more information will need to be collected and processed. With such a large and complex body of data there is always the possibility that problems occur in compiling it, or that anomalies are found that need to be resolved before publication. A legal obligation to publish a report within a certain time limit could risk forcing the Government to publish misleading or incomplete data. That would not be helpful to those, like the Quadripartite Committee, who may wish to scrutinise the reports.
Nevertheless, the Bill will require the Government to publish the annual reports as soon as practicable. That means that the Government cannot deliberately delay the publication of either annual report. Moreover, I can assure the Committee that the Government already endeavour to publish the annual report as soon as possible after the end of the year to which it refers.
Amendment No. 37 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, seeks to require the Government to publish information in the annual report relating to the time taken to process licence applications and to prohibit the Government from including in the annual report any details of temporary export licences.
The annual report on strategic export controls already incorporates details of the Export Control Organisation's performance in processing licence applications. This data includes the percentage of applications processed within the target time of 20 working days as well as a breakdown of the performance of the main government departments involved in the export licensing process. The Government have noted the suggestion through this proposed amendment that this section of the report could be more detailed. Although we do not feel that it is appropriate for the detailed content of the annual report to be set out in primary legislation, we shall be looking at whether the section of the annual report on licensing performance could be made more extensive.
The amendment also proposes that temporary export licences be excluded from the annual report. The Government are proud of the fact that the annual reports have become progressively more informative over the past few years. To exclude temporary licences from those detailed in the report would be to take a step backwards from the increasing transparency and accountability to which we are committed. We believe
860
it is important that export licensing policy and practice should be open to retrospective scrutiny, including in the area of issuing temporary export licences. As I say, to exclude temporary licences would be to take a step backwards. There is already in the annual reports all the information people need to hold the Government to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised a number of extremely important points on the cultural report. I am afraid that I cannot answer those at the moment but I shall write to her in detail. In view of the assurances and arguments I have given, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that careful reply. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. Although in this Chamber all Ministers are expected to answer for all departments, such virtuosity cannot be expected on every single occasion. I am grateful for the Minister's offer to write to me with the details of the operation of the reporting system with regard to the cultural report. It would be interesting to know about the procedure under which Parliament will be able to hold Ministers to account and whether it is a matter of the relevant Secretary of State making a statement to the Chamber or whether it is simply a matter of a document being laid. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"PARLIAMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEE
As part of the licence application process required by an order under section I, 2. 3 or 4, the Secretary of State may take advice from a Parliamentary Select Committee."
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands also in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. It deals with an important and sensitive issue; namely, whether a system of prior scrutiny of some of the more sensitive and important licences should be part of the licensing process. We understand that it is a highly contentious matter. It has been trailed by the reports of the Quadripartite Committee. It had meetings with the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. The Government have responded to its first report. It issued a further report in July last year to which there has not been a government response.
The reason that the supporters of the amendment believe it important that the Government consider it favourably is because the licensing of arms is of the greatest public and often international importance. It has led us into deep waters in recent years. Far from prior scrutiny by a parliamentary committee obfuscating, obstructing or delaying the licensing process, we believe that the measure would be a valuable addition to the scrutiny process. It is vital to
bear in mind that Amendment No. 42 gives a discretion for the Secretary of State only to take advice from the parliamentary Select Committee.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 83 are grouped with Amendment No. 42. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has put in place detailed provisions as to how the measure might work as regards the constitution of the relevant committee, its powers and so on.
On this side of the Chamber, we believe that to give the Secretary of State the power to take advice from a parliamentary Select Committee in cases he or she considers appropriate—they will be cases of great importance and/or sensitivity—will he of great benefit to all concerned. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, expressed the fear that the measure could legally encumber the process and cause embarrassment. That fear is avoided by the fact that the committee consulted by the Secretary of State would merely give advice. There is no constitutional problem if the measure is confined to giving advice.
There is concern about the balance of power between Parliament and the executive. It is traditional for Parliament always to scrutinise the activities of the executive in retrospect. However, I believe—the right reverend Prelate will speak for himself—that this is one case where public interest will be well served if the Secretary of State has that right. Sweden has a prior scrutinising system. America has one. The objections voiced by the Government are that the provision could affect the competitiveness of British industry, the efficiency and effectiveness of the process, could breach confidentiality and so on. Those objections can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily. We hope that the Government will look with approbation upon the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 56 and 83. I apologise for detaining the Committee, but this is an extremely important matter that has been debated at great length in the other place. Outside lobbies are very interested in these amendments, as are many colleagues in the other place.
The arguments have been well rehearsed. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has done so again this evening. They were convincingly put in the quadripartite reports of July 2000 and March 2001 and were unanimously carried by that committee, which was made up of four Select Committees of the House of Commons. There was almost universal support within those Select Committees themselves. An Early-Day Motion has been tabled in the other place today that has been supported by a cross-party alliance, including a number of former defence Ministers. It is strange that once defence Ministers leave the department, they suddenly become converts to the principle of prior scrutiny. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have that in mind when replying to my amendments.
My intention is to cast new light on the issue of prior scrutiny and, in particular, the framework for a new scrutiny committee. I am proposing a practical and
862
innovative solution, based on the operations of the Intelligence and Security Committee, whose operations would not be binding on the Government. The model framework in my amendment is set out in Section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I have lifted the section out of that Act and have amended it to meet the new role of the proposed defence exports scrutiny committee.
Why did I select that structure? I did so primarily because of industrial and government concerns over issues of confidentiality. The truth is that business does not trust the politicians. This structure will give business a framework for a committee that it can trust. It will also deal with the issue of delay, to which my noble friend the Minister referred previously, as have Ministers in the other place.
It is interesting that concerns over confidentiality dominated the arguments within the security services in the 1970s and 1980s prior to the introduction of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The then Prime Minister, John Major, established a structure that would reassure everyone in the community, which has been very successful. The services have been reassured and Ministers have been able to pray in aid its work in both Houses. On one occasion, that structure was commissioned by a Prime Minster to carry out a report into the Mitrokhin allegations. It carried out a full inquiry and the Committee enjoyed the confidence of both Houses of Parliament.
I shall say a few words about the structure. The committee is not a Select Committee, but a committee of parliamentarians, which is appointed by the Prime Minister. Every member has to sign the Official Secrets Act and it meets in conditions of total secrecy. The ISC structure comprises one Peer and eight Members of the House of Commons. It is always chaired by a politician of distinction and its members are all Privy Counsellors, apart from one, Michael Mates, who, in my view, should be on the Privy Council. The committee meets in Whitehall, not in Parliament, and has access to the whole intelligence community. Its powers are determined by law and it reports to the Prime Minister when necessary. Its role is to comment on matters set out in the 1994 Act. It has no executive power. Its decisions bind no one. Its reports are scrutinised by those who are being scrutinised; that is, the intelligence community. It never leaks. If it did, it would collapse.
What is wrong with setting up such a structure to oversee Britain's defence exports? My proposal is to establish a defence exports scrutiny committee, which we may refer to as DESC for the purposes of this debate. Its remit would be to monitor and report on defence export licence applications and policy wherever necessary. Its modus operandi would be given by a code introduced by the Prime Minister under paragraph 2(5) of the schedule in Amendment No. 83.
The code would deal with the procedures to be followed by the committee both prior to and post notification. It would define applications, which would be exempt from scrutiny. That involves the whole argument about NATO. It would deal with the

863
treatment of classified information and it would obviously meet OSA requirements. It would deal with the arrangements for appointing a chairman and the special responsibilities of the chair in order to avoid delay—the very delays that were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who moved some particularly interesting amendments on that matter.
The code would deal with the whole question of a Secretary of State override in special circumstances, such as the potential cancellation of contracts. That issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The code would deal with conflicts of interest and other matters. It might well reflect many of the ideas that were proposed by the Quadripartite Committee in its second report of 2001.
I place on record my appreciation of the work on the code that is being done by Saferworld and in particular by Vanessa Haines, who has been doing considerable work in that area. I asked Saferworld to help me, and it has been extremely helpful. I have given only recommendations for the code.
I turn to the Government's response. They have given a number of responses to the whole idea of prior scrutiny in the first and second reports of the Quadripartite Committee. The most considered response can be found in the second report; that is. the document entitled, Strategic Export Controls: Annual Report for 1999 and Parliamentary Prior Scrutiny. I shall pick out the key sentences of the Government's response. They said that the arrangement,
"could not be made to work in practice".
That is the Government's position. My response is to point out that in the structure that I have proposed, the arrangement would work effectively because it provides for a limited form of accountability. The machinery of decision-taking would not be compromised by open debate because the committee would meet in secrecy.
I turn to another of the Government's responses. They said that,
"it would be wrong for Ministers to be required to consult Parliament before taking decisions in individual cases".
However, they would be consulting not Parliament but a committee of parliamentarians, which is not a committee of Parliament. It is not a Select Committee; it is not protected by parliamentary privilege; it is subject not to parliamentary resolutions but only to primary and secondary legislation. It cannot report directly to Parliament—all reports go through the Prime Minister for sidelining—and it would not have the rights of a Select Committee and Ministers or civil servants could not be held in contempt in relation to the giving of evidence. What further protection could there be for the executive in such conditions?
In their response, the Government said that the committee's involvement would, "compromise confidentiality" and,
"give rise to legal difficulties".
I shall come to that point later. They also said that,
"the public disclosure of any information before a contract is signed could he prejudicial".
864
However, that would not occur because all relevant matters take place under the conditions prescribed by the Official Secrets Act. They state that,
"overseas Governments can have legitimate requirements for nondisclosure of their military procurement programmes. for example on grounds of national security, which they would wish to see respected".
A safeguard in that area is built into Schedule 2 under paragraph 4(c). That is why that phrase is included; it is to deal with that specific matter. The Government say:
"Open debate of the merits of a particular proposed export, as the Committee believes it might wish to encourage in some instances, could quite simply result in UK exporter losing the business".
That could not happen because, once again, I stress, the debates are not taking place in public; they are taking place in private inside the DESC.
The Government say that,
"in cases where the Committee's advice to the Government arose from a disagreement over policy, the Secretary of State would be unable to act on that advice without exposing the Government to an increased risk of judicial review on grounds of inconsistency and unlawful sub-delegation".
My response is that, if the committee's position is unknown, clearly any disagreement with the Government is unknown. Therefore, there can be no basis for a legal challenge. The Government say that,
"the committee would be acting on the basis of less information than that available to the Government".
Again, my response is that, if the OSA, is in operation, it is impossible to estimate the extent of knowledge available to members of the committee.
The Government say:
"The introduction of the Committee into the decision making process would increase the uncertainties for exporters and could leave those decisions more open to legal challenge. It is also difficult to see how such a system could be introduced without the Committee taking a shared responsibility, and becoming accountable for the role it would play in export licensing decisions. That would, in turn, make its retrospective scrutiny less effective".
Obviously no legal challenge is possible without access to the deliberations of the committee. That access is denied, again, because it meets conditions of official secrecy. Without public knowledge of the committee's advice on an application, shared responsibility simply cannot arise.
The Government say that,
"prior parliamentary scrutiny would introduce further delays into the licensing process".
We have heard a great deal about delays this evening. I understand that the position is that, when the Quadripartite Committee considered these matters, it said, "We shall deal with these matters concurrently with the Government". Therefore, again, I cannot see what the problem is.
Then the Government refer to the fact that,
"the 10 days proposed by the Committee represents the very minimum additional delay, and that in practice the delay would often be a great deal longer".
Again, I refer to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Today, we have heard about the reason for delays. I cannot understand how the intrusion of

865
this committee structure or framework into the consideration of Ministers—in the event that they would wish to have the considerations of such a committee in mind—would delay matters any more than has already been alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The delay is likely only in cases which would be controversial and which, therefore, by implication, would take longer for the department to handle.
Finally, the Government say:
"The Government would need to devote significant extra resources to implement the much increased level of liaison with the Committee that would be needed by the system of prior scrutiny proposed by the Committee".
The proposals for fast-tracking, which I would include in a code and which would be introduced by the Prime Minister, would, in my view, deal with that problem. I believe that if one fast-tracks, clearly one does not have to devote as much resource to the committee as Ministers may have in mind at present.
I also understand that there has been some argument about unlawful delegation. I understand that Matrix Chambers has responded that it may be better to deal with advice—that is, advice from the committee—in primary or secondary legislation. In the case of my framework, because it is not a committee of Parliament, I do not believe that even the Matrix Chambers representation is relevant. The question of advice is covered adequately under paragraph (5) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 56, which states:
"The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions".
That is a direct take from the 1994 Act as it applied to the intelligence community. We know that that structure can work.
I am also told that one of the final, core positions of the Government is the principle that governments must govern and parliaments must check. My response is that, before decisions are taken, consideration by the executive of the views of the legislature is not unprecedented. That happens all the time.
The other day I visited the tea room to talk to some of my old friends in order to acquire some examples of that. Within about half an hour I had been given a series of examples of Select Committees making recommendations to Ministers prior to Ministers taking decisions. I shall lay one or two of those on the record.
The Select Committee on Transport carried out two inquiries into the privatisation of NATS which preceded decisions by Ministers. On the restructuring of the TA, the Defence Select Committee took a view and made its recommendation to Ministers. On rail privatisation, the Transport Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Robert Adley, met for 185 hours on one issue and then Ministers took decisions. They may not have taken the decision that I wanted them to
866
take, but they fully considered the recommendations of the Select Committee. I was in the House of Commons when a Statement was made to Parliament.
Another inquiry carried out by the Transport Select Committee considered the United Kingdom/US negotiations relating to the Bermuda agreement on transatlantic airline traffic. The Home Affairs Select Committee inquired into ID cards. That was immediately prior to Michael Howard's decision on smart cards, an idea that he turned down in the 1992/ 97 Parliament. The Public Administration Select Committee is currently inquiring into reform of the House of Lords prior to a decision being taken by the Government. We are told by the Lord Chancellor that that committee's recommendation will be taken into account in whatever decisions are taken by the Government.
The Agriculture Select Committee has inquired into the quarantine of animals. Some say that that was an inquiry that was born in the department with responsibility for agriculture and that the committee was asked to carry out that inquiry by Ministers. In that case Ministers turned down the recommendations of the committee, but they were implemented by the previous government.
Of course, prior to the decision that was announced today in the House of Commons, there was an inquiry into the PPP for London Transport. The one that may be of most interest to the Minister, because it deals with an individual decision, was the Daresbury Syncotron facility inquiry that was carried out, if I remember rightly, by the Science and Technology Select Committee in the other place. That committee made its recommendation to the Government and the Government took it into account.
I believe that often Ministers ask committees to carry out inquiries prior to taking decisions so that they have help in their deliberations. I place those examples on the record because we are being told that governments must govern and that parliaments hold governments to account. Already in this country a system is in operation whereby committee recommendations are being considered by government before government take their final decisions.
I believe that we have a powerful case on prior scrutiny. It has been widely put. I believe that the structure that I am proposing will deal with that. It is a structure based on trust. As relationships develop behind closed doors, away from public debate, between departmental officials, Ministers and members of committees that operate in these conditions, all sorts of information flows. I believe that in those conditions there will be a more sensitive appreciation of the concerns of elected Members of Parliament and Members of this House in the decisions that are finally taken by Ministers.
I ask my noble friend tonight not to knock it all on the head. I ask him in winding-up the debate to tell us that over the next five or six weeks prior to the Report

867
stage that he at least will consider these arguments and perhaps have them in mind when we table amendments again, if necessary, on Report.
Lord Rea: I rise to support the amendment. One of the very few aspects of prior scrutiny that my noble friend did not mention is the fact that, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, prior scrutiny takes place in the United States and Sweden without seeming to damage the export potential of either country, particularly the USA.
The Government have rejected this as a supporting argument on the grounds that the systems employed in those countries would not be useful in the UK context. But members of the Quadripartite Select Committee actually noted during the debates on the Bill in the other place that the systems employed in those countries did have certain weaknesses which should not be imported wholesale. The committee considered those weaknesses and the peculiarities of the UK system when drafting its proposals. They have been outlined extremely skilfully and in some detail by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I commend strongly all three proposed amendments. They are workable. They should be considered by my noble friend.
In closing, I should say that my noble friend has been quite modest. He did not declare that he has been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee of another place. He says that there is absolutely no question of any breach of security. As confidence grows between the intelligence and security services and the committee, more and more and more sensitive information will be discussed without any harm being done to our security services.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: It is very late at night. It would be helpful if one of the three who tabled the amendment went on the record. I cannot compete with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has gone off for his own child to be born. I am waiting for a grandchild to be born which should have been born yesterday. It looks as if it has missed today and it will be tomorrow. But there it is.
'The basic assumption about all this is the Scott report's criticism regarding the lack of accountability and transparency in legislation. Those two issues are at the heart of it and are the two issues that govern my desire to support the amendment. We have heard a structure—a way forward—ably outlined. I do not have a better way forward.
To say that we have an accounts system at the moment—we rehearsed the issue earlier—is transparency post hoc and not prior scrutiny. I think that the Government might be glad of the kind of scrutiny that has been suggested and proposed. 'We might have avoid the kind of situation that we had over the sale of the air traffic control system to Tanzania if we had had some prior scrutiny of the situation. One can say that America or Sweden are not typical. That is all right, but let us buy into the principle again and work out some kind of proposal as
868
has been suggested tonight over the next month or so that meets the concerns that the Government quite rightly have about secrecy, confidentiality and so on.
We need to make some provision for prior scrutiny that allows the public, the NGOs and the people beyond Britain to feel that we are consistent in our application of the UK criteria for arms export; that we are following the EU code and the proposals contained in the Bill. I hope that the Government will not be too coy but will buy into the principle and think creatively about how it might be worked out.
The Earl of Sandwich: I should like to express regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, could not remain with us because of the late hour. She would have been able to offer much wisdom on the subject.
We are most fortunate to have the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with us in Committee. He had a special position in the other place, and I know that he has already earned a special place in the Chamber this evening. The noble Lord made a very powerful case, on which I shall not elaborate. However, when we are talking about delay, I should like to stress that we must remember, for example, the components of the Hawk aircraft that we allowed the Zimbabweans to have at a time when they were fighting in the Congo—not necessarily with that aircraft, but as has been universally recognised, it was not something that we should have done. The committee was not able to follow it up, but it could have clone something about it if it had been established at the time of the application.
Lord Judd: I must confess that I a:m among those former defence Ministers, albeit, in those days, a junior member of the team, who has seen the light. We have seen the light because of our experiences when in office. It is very significant that former defence Ministers are putting their names to an Early Day Motion in the other place. I, too, should like to put on record my deep respect for my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—we are neighbours in Cumbria—for his longstanding and salutary work in this whole area over many years. He spoke powerfully this evening.
I should also like to draw attention to the strength of argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, this evening. It would be possible to rehearse many of the arguments, but I believe that they have been more than fully covered. I have two questions for my noble friend the Minister that I hope he will address in his response. First, it seems extraordinary that the Government could view the operations of a committee modelled on the Intelligence and Security Committee as being in danger of breaching commercial confidentiality. If the Government really believe that a committee modelled on such an excellent committee with all its records so far could endanger commercial confidentiality, they must tell us why. That view certainly raises some pretty profound questions about the other committee that is already carrying out its work. The Government must be consistent and open about their argument in this respect.

869
Secondly, given the number of precedents for the Government consulting a committee or agency in the exercise of its functions, and the repeated emphasis that a defence export scrutiny committee would have a purely advisory role, can my noble friend clarify whether the Government foresee a constitutional barrier to the establishment of such a committee? I have certainly had sight of legal advice which says that there is no constitutional barrier. If there is such a barrier, the Government must specify exactly what it is.
Finally, we are not discussing this matter in a vacuum, or in an academic kind of way. In recent decades a number of very disturbing incidents have taken place that have come to light only after the persistent lobbying and outcry and, indeed, the courage of many people who have insisted that they should be taken seriously. That is no way to approach an issue of this kind, where we are all agreed that the irresponsible exporting of arms can have profound dislocating effects on international security and peace, as well as on the well-being of people. The need to approach the matter with a sound and convincing arrangement of the kind outlined by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is really overwhelming. Therefore, as has already been argued, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to say this evening that he has listened—it is always good when a Minister can say that he has done so—that he will take the point seriously, and that he will take it away and return on Report with a convincing position.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments would add new clauses to the Bill that would provide for the Secretary of State to take advice from a parliamentary Select Committee or a committee of parliamentarians in the licensing process. As we have heard, it is intended to provide for the prior parliamentary scrutiny of individual licence applications, a subject that has been raised by the Quadripartite Committee in the other place, and to which the Government have responded in the past. The amendments would, of course, extend prior scrutiny to licensing decisions made under the other powers in the Bill.
The question of prior scrutiny has already been considered at some length by the Government, in response to the recommendations made by the Quadripartite Committee. The Government's position on the issue was set out in their response of July last year, in which we stated that there was an important principle involved about the respective roles of government and Parliament. That can be best expressed by quoting from the Government's response:
"The Committee has reiterated that a system of prior scrutiny 'would not mean that a Committee would share responsibility or take decisions'. However, the Government strongly believes that bringing the Committee into the export licensing process, regardless of the formal status of the Committee's recommendations to Ministers, would in practice be bound to blur this responsibility. The Government therefore remains of the view that, as a matter of principle, it would be wrong for Ministers to be required to consult Parliament before taking decisions in individual cases".
870
That remains the Government's view.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, set out the issue with remarkable clarity in his speech at Second Reading. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I quote his views on the subject in full, as he explains the position admirably. He stated that:
"Speaking personally, I am against prior scrutiny and am in favour of the Government's refusal to agree to its incorporation into the export licensing regime".—[Official Report; 8/1/02; col. 484.]
Lord Campbell-Savours: Can I take my noble friend back to the words about sharing responsibility? That response from Government came in the context of the recommendation that a Select Committee of Parliament deal with such matters. I am not proposing that. That proposition must now be revisited. They are not sharing a decision with part of the legislature.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I find it hard to understand the distinction that a committee of parliamentarians—that is what it is—is not, in some sense, representative of Parliament's views and that, if it takes part in the decision-making process, it is not, in some way, sharing in that process.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to come back to my noble friend, but that discussion has taken place repeatedly in proceedings in the Intelligence Services Committee. The ISC draws a gross distinction, as has the Prime Minister in correspondence with me over the years, between a committee comprising parliamentarians and a parliamentary Select Committee. There is a clear distinction that is often referred to during evidence given by the chiefs of the security services.
My noble friend may not be able to understand that, but it is well rehearsed in other Government departments. He has given a reason as to why he may want to consult further. If that distinction exists, that answer does not stand.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I still find it difficult to see that a committee of parliamentarians taking part in decisions is not, in some way, taking part and sharing responsibility. I can only return to the quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote—
11.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He keeps saying, "taking part in the decision". The point that is being made by Members of the Committee this evening is that in a whole realm of instances the Government take advice before they reach decisions. What on earth suggests that if we have a Parliament worth having, it is not possible to have a group of distinguished parliamentarians who can give advice? They are not saying what should be done; they are simply giving advice which is taken into account.
I do not want to delay the Committee, but as I have the floor perhaps I might point out, just to take a random example, that Section 124 of the

871
Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the Secretary of State to,
"appoint a committee to provide him with advice [interalia] on the exercise of powers to grant licences … releasing or marketing genetically modified organisms".
Why, if people outside Parliament can be appointed to such a committee, should there not be a committee of parliamentarians? Nobody is suggesting that they represent Parliament, but they are a wise group of parliamentarians whose advice is sought and taken into account. The Government then decide whether or not they want to take the advice.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Before my noble friend replies perhaps I can refer him to the case of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the railway system. He is an adviser to government and a Member of this House. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who wrote the report on agriculture for government. He is a Member of this place and he is also advising government. I ask my noble friend to see this point in that context and not in terms of a committee of the legislature giving advice or making recommendations
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I would find this argument more convincing if the game had not already been given away by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who said that this would merely be giving advice and would have no constitutional implications. He promptly followed that by saying that many people were concerned about the balance of power between the legislature and the executive. He suggested that this would be a good way of dealing with that situation. I took that to be the implication. It was therefore quite clear that he saw this as having a constitutional implication. If the balance between the legislature and the executive is not a question of constitutional importance, I do not know what it is.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he quoted me, perhaps I can say that it is true that I talked in terms of a balance of power. I make no apology for that and it does not in any way go counter to the substance of the issue, which is whether or not the committee concerned gives advice or is a co-decision-maker with the Secretary of State. It is not the latter. Were it the latter, the Minister would have a constitutional point.
When talking about the balance of power, as has already been stated by several Members of the Committee, there are many instances where prior scrutiny, prior advice, is given to the executive in order to aid and abet it in reaching a decision. When I talk of the balance of power, it is more in the general sense of that phrase, indicating a concern on the part of the public that there is insufficient relationship between the executive and Parliament at all stages. But I emphasise that this would be an advisory and not a decisive exercise.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am always concerned to find myself debating these issues with both distinguished parliamentarians and distinguished lawyers. I am only fortified in my views by the fact of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said, who obviously has some understanding of these constitutional issues and particularly how they apply in this specific case. Perhaps I can quote his reasoning, which seems to be totally pertinent to this point. He said,
"It seems to me that the function of Parliament, whether of this House or another place, is to hold the executive, the government, accountable for the decisions that they take. Export licensing is essentially an executive function. Parliament has a constitutional obligation to hold government to account for their executive decisions and should not become complicit in them by prior scrutiny, which one supposes would disqualify whichever House had conducted the prior scrutiny from conducting a proper accountability exercise. For those reasons I believe that the prior scrutiny proposal was correctly rejecter.—[Official Report, 8/1/ 02; col. 484.]
In summary, it is for the Government as the executive to take executive decisions and to answer for them later to Parliament as the legislature. The scrutiny of government licensing decisions can and should take place retrospectively rather than before a decision is made. This is where the annual reports on strategic exports play a vital role. The Government believe that their annual reports have greatly improved the transparency and accountability of decisions on export licensing.
Such decisions are made in the full knowledge that they will be subject to public scrutiny, including scrutiny by the Quadripartite Select Committee, and Ministers will, quite rightly, be held accountable for them.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, in an extremely interesting and carefully constructed amendment, has proposed a system to scrutinise licence applications and the licensing process which would provide for a degree of confidentiality in relation to the committee's activities, but it does not deal with this constitutional issue.
The Government also believe that a system of prior scrutiny could not be made to work without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing process and without causing significant damage to the competitiveness of UK exports.
In spite of all the discussion about it being in parallel, I know of no case where another body added to the decision-making process—which almost certainly in this case could not start its consideration until it had received all the evidence from the different government departments—would not substantially add to the already complicated process of obtaining government agreement on these key issues.

873
The Government see Parliament's role in this area as being one of scrutinising decisions after they have been taken and having the opportunity to input into policy. We do not believe that it would be right for Parliament to take part in or advise on the decision-making process itself.
I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been made.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may place on record to him that his whole brief has been written on the basis that I am talking about a parliamentary committee. I am not talking about that. On that basis, I ask him to revisit the argument during the coming weeks.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As I said, we take this matter very seriously. I shall look carefully to see whether the arguments I have advanced are altered by the point made by my noble friend. I have listened very carefully. The government view has been stated very clearly, but I shall take it away and consider whether it has been altered.
Lord Judd: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has put the point extremely clearly. He is not alone in his conviction that we are not talking about a parliamentary committee. It is as clear as this Chamber to me that that is the case. We are not talking about a parliamentary committee.
In his response, my noble friend referred to the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, that it is Parliament's job to hold the executive to account. He seemed to imply, therefore, that what was being proposed would undermine Parliament's job in holding the Government to account. Can my noble friend the Minister illustrate how this will in any way undermine Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account?
The advisory group will give its opinion; its views will be accepted or rejected or whatever; and Parliament will then look at the decision and say whether it is a good decision or a bad decision. I do not see any logic in the case put forward by my noble friend the Minister
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is a case where there is impeccable logic. I am very happy to be associated in this view with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. We are obviously alone in sharing this view, but it seems to me quite clear that if a parliamentary committee, or a committee which involves parliamentarians, is involved in the decision-making process it makes it more difficult for Parliament subsequently to hold the executive liable.
874
I have listened to the arguments and I will take them away. We take this matter very seriously but, in view of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We are grateful to the Minister for dealing with these amendments as he has and for being so good natured about the large number of interventions. It has made for a useful airing of the important issues involved.
In his response, he did not touch on the efficacy of prior scrutiny in political terms. Everyone has tried to urge upon him that this would be good for the Government, good for Parliament, good in terms of public opinion and good in terms of the quality of the outcome. He did not touch on any of that. It is a pity that the debate was dominated by the legal and constitutional issue.
The Minister said that he will consider these matters carefully. Perhaps I may suggest that he takes formal advice from Treasury counsel, or from another appropriate source, on the legal and constitutional issues. My belief is that the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott—on which the Minister quite reasonably relied—was not an ex cathedra legal statement as regards the constitutional consequences of what is proposed, but the noble and learned Lord's political view as to the best way forward. We could ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. what he meant. But when he said that Parliament should not become complicit in executive decisions by prior scrutiny, I believe that the word "should" related to politics and not to law.
We need to get to the bottom of the legal issue. If the Government are right about that, frankly, we must withdraw from the field. If the Government are wrong, and several distinguished barristers have said clearly that because this is an advisory decision there is no constitutional or legal impediment. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on this issue. I do not believe that his distinction between a Select Committee and a committee of parliamentarians is the crucial issue. It is the advisory as opposed to the decisive quality of the matter that is at the core of the debate.
If the Government find that they are not right in their constitutional and legal position, I very much hope that they will have regard to the fact that no one in this House is grinding any political axe. We have a great many people with huge experience in the fields about which we are talking. The view of those who have spoken has been unanimous.

875
Again, we are grateful for the Minister's response. We hope that the matter can be returned to on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before midnight.

  Mileage Allowances
  Mileage Allowances
  European Arrest Warrants
  European Arrest Warrants
  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Defence Exports
  Defence Exports
  International Security Assistance Force
  International Security Assistance Force
  Commonwealth War Graves: France and Belgium
  Commonwealth War Graves: France and Belgium
  Ilisu and Yusufeli Projects: ECGD Support
  Ilisu and Yusufeli Projects: ECGD Support
  Laeken European Council: Presidential Conclusions and Appendices
  Laeken European Council: Presidential Conclusions and Appendices
  EU Committee of Permanent Representatives
  EU Committee of Permanent Representatives
  EU Council Meetings: Scrutiny Arrangement
  EU Council Meetings: Scrutiny Arrangement
  EU Committee of the Regions: UK Representatives
  EU Committee of the Regions: UK Representatives
  Meat Imports: Heathrow Airport
  Meat Imports: Heathrow Airport
  Assured Food Standards
  Assured Food Standards
  Environmental Claims in Advertising: Guidelines
  Environmental Claims in Advertising: Guidelines
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Mark 1 Rolling Stock: Cup and Cone Modification
  Mark 1 Rolling Stock: Cup and Cone Modification
  London and Manchester Airports: Use by Overseas Residents
  London and Manchester Airports: Use by Overseas Residents
  Local Leadership and Public Services
  Local Leadership and Public Services
  Aircraft: Minimum Space Standards
  Aircraft: Minimum Space Standards