Sitting of 12 February 2002

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

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 February.

  PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES: OPTIONS FOR REGULATION
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Paper, entitled Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Dalmuir Credit Union
    Tony Worthington: If she will make a statement about her visit to Clydebank to open the new premises of Dalmuir credit union. [32332]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Dalmuir credit union is an excellent example of the success of the credit union movement. Everyone has a right to financial services, which are a key tool in the fight against poverty. At Dalmuir, the Scottish principles of self-help and thrift are plainly to the fore in one of the most successful community credit unions ever.
    Tony Worthington: We were grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to open the credit union, which marks the arrival of the credit union movement in a very different way. Since she came, 85 extra members a month have been added to the credit union's membership, which now totals 5,500, and it has share capital of £3.7 million. It is easily the largest community-based credit union in the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, alongside the universal bank in the Post Office and
    56
    other Government measures, the credit union is a powerful means of tackling poverty and increasing social cohesion?
    Mrs. Liddell: I agree wholeheartedly. Of my many engagements, that visit was probably one of the more successful. I was able to meet people whom I had not seen for quite some time, and the warmth of the response was outstanding. With my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Rose Dorman, the doyenne of the UK credit union movement. To a large extent, it is her vision that has made that credit union so successful.
    The fight against financial exclusion is important. Most Members of Parliament can pay their utility bills by direct debit, thereby reducing their bills, but people who are very poor often do not have bank accounts, so access to financial services is often a guarantee of lower bills. Conservative Members may mock, but they have never had to deal with poverty to the extent that the Government have.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State is right to say that credit unions play a valuable role in protecting ordinary people who are financially disadvantaged from the likes of loan sharks. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) is right to say that Dalmuir credit union is a model. As one of the biggest credit unions in the country, it should be used as an example for others.
    The Financial Services Authority has done a lot to protect members, which should encourage people, but although the Scottish Executive have made some quite encouraging statements about developing and supporting credit unions in future, we have not yet seen much of substance. The people of Clydebank would probably benefit from the right hon. Lady's working with her partners in Edinburgh to get further action as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Liddell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general sentiments about the value of credit unions, but it was only a few months ago that, with Jackie Baillie, then the Scottish Minister for Social Justice, I opened another credit union in Edinburgh's Leith area. It is important to recognise that the Scottish Executive and the Government work hand in hand.
    The FSA has now taken over responsibility for the regulation of credit unions, and a new wave of regulation comes in from 1 July 2002 to ensure that credit unions have the base of protection that other financial services sector companies have. In addition, the Treasury has just finished a consultation exercise on ways in which the credit union movement can be given further assistance; an announcement will be made shortly.
    I take this opportunity to congratulate Scotland's banking sector, which has worked closely with the Government to ensure that we increase banking opportunities for all. The banks have been instrumental in giving a great deal of support to the credit union movement, despite the fact that some in their number regard credit unions as competitors.

    BP Grangemouth
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive's Minister for Enterprise regarding the future of BP at Grangemouth. [32333]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I have regular discussions with all the Executive Ministers on a range of issues, although not all of them appear in my diary. My hon. Friend will be aware that I met BP shortly after its announcement in November to discuss the future.
    Mr. Connarty: I am sure that my hon. Friend shares with the people of Grangemouth and the communities of central Scotland the anguish that they felt as 1,000 people were called into the offices of BP's management to be told that, despite the service that they had given, they were now on the scrap heap. I seek an assurance that the ministerial taskforce, which I have been invited to join, and the partnership action for continuing employment group, which has set up an office in my constituency, will focus on making sure that those people are not put on the scrap heap.
    When this is all over, will my hon. Friend ensure that that pain and anguish was not for nothing? There is a rumour going around of the impending closure of one UK refinery, which would make the UK a net importer of petrol. Will he fight to ensure that it is not Grangemouth?
    Mr. Foulkes: I commend my hon. Friend and his colleague, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for the area, Cathy Peattie, on their assiduous work in defending the interests of their constituents who are working at BP, and all the families involved. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been able to join the taskforce. I talked to Wendy Alexander about that and other aspects of BP at Grangemouth, and I shall continue to have discussions with her. I have also discussed with the Health and Safety Executive its concerns about Grangemouth, and I am willing to talk to it further if my hon. Friend would find that helpful.
    I am surprised by what my hon. Friend says. He will recall from our meeting with BP that the purpose of the downsizing at Grangemouth was to safeguard the remaining jobs in the long term. In the light of what my hon. Friend says, I shall seek a further meeting with BP to discuss the matter.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Given the potential of BP axing 40 per cent. of the work force at Grangemouth and given the problems of job losses in key areas of the Scottish economy, such as Grangemouth, does the Minister share the Secretary of State's complacent view that the Scottish economy is performing well? Will he now take seriously the problems of Scottish industry?
    Mr. Foulkes: The House should compare the positive and constructive attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk. East (Mr. Connarty) with that of the Scottish National party. SNP Members remind me of carrion crows. They hover, waiting for a corpse, so that they can
    58
    pick up some political advantage from it. They will not be able to do that. The latest polls show that Scotland continues to reject the narrow nationalism of the SNP.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: One of the problems that is faced by BP and others is a lack of tradesmen, especially pipe fitters. What representations has my hon. Friend made to the Scottish Executive about the training programme for tradesmen in Scotland?
    Mr. Foulkes: That is not a planted question. Heaven forfend. By a strange coincidence, not only did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discuss this issue with Transco, but I discussed it with Wendy Alexander when we met and launched the Clyde taskforce report. We are actively looking into the matter. I shall talk to my hon. Friend about it immediately after questions.
    Mr. Greg Knight: In these and other discussions, has the Minister made any assessment of what effect Labour's policies of more regulations, higher taxes, excessive fuel duties and oppressive congestion charging will have on the long-term future of BP and the oil industry generally? Is it not crystal clear that the continuation of those policies will lead to ever more job losses in Scotland?
    Mr. Foulkes: I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to Scotland. I will take him round and show him some things. He might like to know that there have been substantial new announcements in the oil industry in Scotland. In November, the Department of Trade and Industry gave approval for phase 2 of the Juno field, with 1,200 jobs underpinned, and for the first phase of the Clare field. In January, three new oilfields—Madoes, Mirren and Maclure—were approved. Those are all BP fields. I thought that the SNP Members were bad enough, but the Tories seem to want to trump the SNP in talking down Scotland. We will not let them do that.

    Friends of Scotland Initiative
    Mr. Iain Luke: How she estimates Scottish tourism will benefit from her recent friends of Scotland visit to the far east. [32334]
    Mr. Eric Joyce: What benefits for Scotland's oil and gas industries she expects to derive from her recent visit to the far east. [32338]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): My recent trip to south-east Asia was primarily trade related, but I had a useful meeting with the British Tourist Authority in Hong Kong to discuss how best to market Scotland. I also had many meetings with expatriate Scots and others who are enthusiastic supporters of the friends of Scotland initiative.
    While in China I also met senior executives of oil and gas companies in south-east Asia to promote the skills of Scottish-based companies acquired through North sea development. I am confident that there are many opportunities for Scottish companies in south-east Asia.
    Mr. Luke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I compliment her on her persistent and

    59
    persuasive advocacy of Scotland's cause overseas. Does she agree that a vital element in bringing more tourists in from the far east and elsewhere is the creation and establishment of more direct international flights, both long and medium haul, into Scotland's airports. I hope that that will include Dundee airport, once the new departure lounges are completed.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, I take a considerable interest in the issue of direct flights, and there has recently been a good response from Scottish airports. At Prestwick, for example, flight numbers are up by 18.6 per cent.; at Glasgow, they are up by 4.3 per cent.; and at Edinburgh, they are up by 10.2 per cent. Much of that is due to the expansion of direct flights by no-frills carriers. My hon. Friend is a persuasive advocate of more direct flights from Dundee airport, and secured an Adjournment debate on the subject. The refurbishment of the airport is important; I hope that with the expansion of the Ryanair fleet by up to 150 new aircraft, and the easyJet fleet by up to 75 new aircraft, there may be more flights from Dundee airport to international destinations.
    Mr. Joyce: My right hon. Friend will be aware that BP is a large employer in my constituency. What benefits can her recent visit to the far east bring to companies such as BP, which seek to exploit rising sun opportunities?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The oil and gas industry has many international opportunities, not least BP, which is the biggest British investor in mainland China. Whenever I look at the oil and gas industry, I am always conscious of the skills in the supply chain. I was impressed by a seminar that I addressed in mainland China which was attended by representatives of Scottish companies anxious to access the Chinese gas market. The Chinese Government wish to get more than 2.1 per cent. of their energy mix from natural gas; indeed, they want to get up to 10 per cent. We have the talents, skills and expertise; Scottish companies can benefit from that.
    John Thurso: Doubtless, the Secretary of State's efforts in the far east were well supported by the British Tourist Authority. Is she aware that the BTA's recent lead promotional document for overseas tourists, "Hidden Britain", fails to mention or refer to more than 50 per cent. of the land mass of Scotland? Does she concur with the chairman of VisitScotland, who suggested that the BTA be abolished and replaced with a tourism structure more responsive to the needs of devolution? Will she make representations in that regard to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
    Mrs. Liddell: The BTA has an important job marketing all the United Kingdom. Many people who come here do not come exclusively to visit one particular part of the UK. However, we must maximise our efforts to market Scotland, not just through the BTA, but in many other directions, not least joint corporate activity. It is important to recognise that the "Hidden Britain" map includes a number of Scottish sites. This morning, I learned of the preparation of a new initiative by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the golden jubilee which
    60
    will enhance the role that Scotland has played in the history of Her Majesty's 50-year reign and will be an important tool for marketing Scotland in 2002.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Secretary of State realise how impressed we all were to read that no sooner had she got off the plane from the far east than she was busy hosting Burns suppers before going off to Wales to boost Scottish tourism? Does she accept that the 2.5 per cent. decline in visitor numbers to Scotland last year, compared with a 10 per cent. rise in Ireland, is the result of serious issues such as the high pound, high petrol prices and under-resourced visitor agencies? Will the Government tackle those significant issues affecting Scotland's major industry, or is it just a case of "c'est la vie"?
    Mrs. Liddell: There the hon. Gentleman goes again, talking Scotland down. No Government Member takes any lessons about work load from him; he voted in 12 per cent. of Divisions in the last Parliament, and only managed to pass the 50 per cent. mark in this Parliament. I have outvoted every member of the Scottish National party in this Parliament, and shall continue to argue for Scotland in every part of the country and in every part of the world. I shall do so taking pride in Scotland, not talking it down.
    Mr. David Marshall: Scotland's tourist links with the far east are important, but perhaps even more important are her links with the far west. Recently, Glasgow airport suffered a number of blows, with the withdrawal of many services to and from Canada. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that she will do all that she can to ensure that those direct daily services are resumed as soon as possible?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend has considerable experience of transport matters. There has been a downturn in activity from the United States as a direct consequence of 11 September. It requires much greater involvement on the part of all of us to ensure that direct flights are maintained. In December I hosted a summit of the airline industry in Edinburgh to talk about the future of daily direct flights. There has been some encouraging news since then, but it is essential that both the Government and the Scottish Executive continue to work with the airline industry to improve the number of flights, and in particular that we take every opportunity to market the positive story of Scotland. Only the Government will do that; the Opposition are united in talking Scotland down.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am glad to see that BAA and Six Continents hotels were represented in the group that travelled with the right hon. Lady to the far east, and I hope that there will be a consequent increase in the number of people visiting Scotland. However, from her busy diary and in an attempt to talk Scotland up, will she give us some idea what engagements she is expecting to attend to boost tourism? Will she confirm that she is no longer seeking to attract inward investment to Scotland, in line with Wendy Alexander's new policy of supporting only indigenous Scottish businesses?
    Mrs. Liddell: Once the hon. Lady has rather more experience of Scotland, she may discover that that is not

    61
    the position of the Scottish Executive. She mentions my diary. I am happy to speak about my diary and the fact that I met a number of businesses in Hong Kong that are anxious to develop in Britain. I was fortunate enough to meet Mr. Li Ka-shing, who has already brought 600 new jobs to Glasgow. I learned this morning that already £1.5 million of new orders have been placed with one Scottish company as a consequence of that visit.
    As a Minister, I have found it a great benefit to take time for preparation. Preparation is extremely important. Notwithstanding that preparation, I have managed to vote in 71 per cent. of all Divisions in the House. The hon. Lady has managed only 54 per cent. of Divisions. What has she been doing with her time? Her constituents deserve to know.

    Biotechnology Companies
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What progress has been made in the development of biotechnology companies in Scotland. [32335]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): In biotechnology, Scotland is a world leader. It is a clear success story—the sector is well on track to double in size during the period 1999 to 2003.
    Dr. Gibson: My hon. Friend will be aware that the biotechnology industry is notorious for overhyping its achievements. Is not the real picture in Scotland one of small companies, few nominations on the stock exchange, few spin-outs from universities and a lack of Government investment in research and development? The biotechnology industry needs much more investment to reach the standards that we see around one city in England, called Cambridge, or am I wrong?
    Mr. Foulkes: I hesitate to call such a distinguished doctor of philosophy wrong, but I think I will. Two of the top three recent biotech private financings in Europe were for Scottish companies: Cyclacel, which is run by a Nobel laureate and is doing fantastic work on cancer, raised £35 million, and Strakan raised £30.5 million. The 30 per cent. growth per annum is almost twice the European average. There are 420 organisations involved in biotechnology in Scotland, 24,400 people are employed by the industry, and there are 37 university departments and research institutes. However, as I am willing to listen and to learn, a week on Friday I have arranged to meet 12 of the leading representatives of the biotechnology industry in Scotland, and I will discuss with them the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Bob Spink: What is the Minister's view of the impact on biotechnology companies and business development in Scotland generally of the massive increase in the burden of regulation that the Government have imposed on business in Scotland? Does he think that that is positive, and that I, like the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), am wrong?
    Mr. Foulkes: I have many meetings day after day, week after week, and that is not the first matter that is raised with me by people in Scotland. There are several other important issues. Scotland would not have twice the European average growth in biotechnology if it was
    62
    over-regulated compared with other countries. If the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints were accurate, we would not have such development in Scotland. Once again, he is trying to pretend something that is not true. Like his Front-Bench colleagues and the Scottish nationalists, he is joining in the chorus of talking Scotland down.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution Issues
    Mr. George Galloway: What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [32357]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 1 January 2002, 19 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They all raised points under article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to a fair trial.
    Mr. Galloway: But has not the Advocate-General considered the extraordinary story of the Scottish police showering Anthony Gauci, the key prosecution witness in the Lockerbie trial, with hunting, shooting and fishing holidays, five-star holidays—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. That matter is sub judice. Under the sub judice rules, the Advocate-General should not respond to that question.

    European Court of Justice Cases
    Mr. Bill Tynan: If she will make a statement about recent European Court of Justice cases which have had an impact upon Scots law. [32359]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The European Court of Justice hears a large number of cases every year raising issues of Community law. Because Community law has a binding effect on the laws of member states, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, any such judgments can have an impact on Scots law.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that comprehensive answer. She will be aware that in Hamilton, South the European Court of Justice is an important and topical subject. How many cases have emanated from Scotland and how many times has she appeared in the European Court of Justice?
    The Advocate-General: Very few cases from Scotland have gone to the European court of justice. The most recent such case is that of Booker Aquaculture, which concerned a reference from the Court of Session that asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on whether the right of property, as recognised by Community law, required that compensation be paid to farmers whose fish had to be destroyed under measures imposed by a Council directive for the control of diseases. Although some of

    63
    those cases and ruling are highly technical, my hon. Friend is right to think that they are important for his constituents.
    I have not yet had the opportunity to appear in the ECJ. I have the rights of audience and I hope that a suitable case will arise.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: What criteria does the Advocate-General use for intervention in the Court of Session? She will be aware that in a recent case, the court was moved to criticise the fact that she had neither appeared nor been represented, although she had said that the case involved a matter of some importance in the context of her responsibilities. Precisely what criteria does she use in determining whether she should intervene?
    The Advocate-General: In the case to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, one of the judges took a view with which I would beg to differ. The case concerned an interpretation of a United Kingdom statute. The law in Scotland was perfectly plain according to three judges, and the law in England and Wales was perfectly plain according to the House of Lords.
    In every case, I have to make a decision on what added value I can give as Advocate-General. I also have to decide whether it would be useful to use public money to extend a case as a result of my intervention. Every case turns on its own merits. I can advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I gave detailed consideration to this case before making a decision on intervention. As it happens, I intimated that I wished to consider intervention when I still had time to consider the case. [Interruption.] Such matters are complex—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Sometimes complex matters can be brief.

    Drugs Misuse
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Pursuant to her oral statement of 15 January, Official Report, column 143, by what means she has sought to clarify the position on the laws on the misuse of drugs in England and Wales. [32360]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): In my reply to the hon. Lady last month, I was referring to the devolution issue case of Robert McIntosh, in which I appeared personally before the Privy Council last year. Brief it was not; it took a couple of days at least. The case concerned statutory assumptions as to the source of property, and the compatibility of those assumptions with human rights. The case was relevant to the law of England and Wales, because their legislation makes similar assumptions, which, at the same time, was subject to legal proceedings domestically—the Rezvi and Benjafield cases—and, in the European Court of Human Rights, the Phillips case. I am pleased to report that the Privy Council agreed that the Scottish legislation was compatible with human rights. That was a case in which I determined that it would be helpful to intervene.
    Miss McIntosh: As far as I know, Robert McIntosh is no relation of mine. To what extent can the
    64
    Advocate-General assure the House that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 will continue to be interpreted in the way that it should be in England, Wales and Scotland? What discussions has she had with her opposite number who represents England and Wales in that regard? What added value does she believe that she brings to this process?
    The Advocate-General: The McIntosh case helped to clarify the law, particularly when the Privy Council overruled the decision of the Appeal Court in Scotland, which reached a different decision from that in the Benjafield case, for example. I am aware and concerned when similar cases to those in Scotland arise in England and Wales, and I shall take a great interest in Scottish cases to ensure that we reach a satisfactory end result.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Monmouth County Court
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on the proposed closure of Monmouth county court. [32365]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): The Lord Chancellor has authorised the closure of Monmouth county court with effect from 1 April 2002. His decision followed a public consultation process and a detailed evaluation by the court service of the work load, facilities and services provided by courts in that area. Arrangements have been made for weekly hearings to take place in High Trees, a building in Chepstow owned by Monmouthshire county council, which is also used by the magistrates court.
    Mr. Edwards: There is great disappointment at the decision to close Monmouth county court, but there is also an acknowledgement that the current facilities in the shire hall are inadequate, and that there is no access for people with disabilities. Given that it is hoped that the shire hall will have a major refurbishment, will my hon. Friend consider returning the county court to that site, if it is in a decent state of repair, so that we can return the administration of justice to Monmouth after centuries of the fine administration of justice there?
    Mr. Wills: I can certainly give my hon. Friend some reassurance on that matter. I understand his intense concern, and that of his constituents, and I pay tribute to his campaigning on the matter. Unfortunately, we have not been able to arrange for hearings to be held in Monmouth in the same way that they have been arranged for Chepstow, because, at the moment, we cannot find a suitable venue in Monmouth that fulfils the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—which comes into force in 2004—and that meets the security needs of the judges. Should that situation change and a suitable venue be found, of course we shall review the situation.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: With regard to the closure of Monmouth county court and the Government's policy on court closure across the land, will the Minister bear it in mind that these decisions are

    65
    sometimes based on figures that suggest a saving, whereas the outcome turns out to be far more expensive, as was the case in Derbyshire, where the Lord Chancellor closed a number of magistrates courts and the cost is now substantially greater?
    Mr. Wills: I should be happy to see any detailed figures that the hon. Gentleman would care to provide me with. He is well aware, however, that the closure of magistrates courts is a matter for the magistrates courts committees, which make such decisions in accordance with the needs of their local area, but if he would like to write to me and provide me with more details, I should be happy to consider anything he sends me.

    Family Visitor Visas
    Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on appeals against refusals of visit visas to family members of UK residents. [32366]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): This Government reinstated the right of appeal against refusals of visitor visas to family members of UK residents on 2 October 2000. In the 14 months since the introduction of the appeal right, the Immigration Appellate Authority received 4,975 appeals, 53 per cent. of which were successful at the adjudicator stage. The review report on the operation of the family visitor appeals scheme will be published shortly.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. The high success rate for appellants in oral hearings—more than 70 per cent. in certain months—suggests that bad initial decisions were taken. What plans does she have to involve adjudicators in preparing information for entry clearance officers to improve the quality of first-stage decisions, so that families need not suffer the distress and expense of appealing against such decisions?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The review process will examine how the system works from start to finish, and I can assure her that we are working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish the role that entry clearance officers should play and whether improvements can be made. We should also examine the information provided to applicants on first going to entry clearance posts and the advice to them on what information they should provide for those initial decisions.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Minister take account of the fact that figures published last October, when the Government last made an announcement on the matter, showed a variation in successful appeals? In November 2000, 18 per cent. were successful, but 45 per cent. were successful in July 2001. Will she be good enough to explain how that can happen, and does not such variation demonstrate the need for greater coherence in the way that such decisions are taken and the criteria given to courts to enable them to reach sensible decisions?
    Ms Winterton: The whole point of what we are doing is to review the system and all such factors will be taken into account. For example, we are examining the differing
    66
    success rates of paper and oral appeals. We are looking at the process from start to finish, and as the Home Secretary said last week, the results will be announced shortly. They will take into account the various factors that I have outlined and the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Miss Anne Begg: In constituencies such as Aberdeen, the full range of family members visit surgeries to discuss such matters, and in that respect I have noticed a difference. A relative who is affluent and owns property in their own country will probably be granted a visa first time, but it is very difficult for someone from an impoverished background to secure a visa, even on appeal. My experience therefore suggests a problem. It is far harder for those from poorer backgrounds to visit this country—they are often automatically rejected because they have no home to return to. Are the Government looking into that issue, and can such discrimination be eliminated from the visa system and the appeals system?
    Ms Winterton: The review will examine the way in which the system works and all aspects of it. Of course, legal help is available for people from poorer backgrounds to enable them to challenge initial decisions. None the less, I take on board my hon. Friend's point and I shall liaise with colleagues in other Departments to see whether anything can be done, perhaps through further research into the matter.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that legal help is not always applicable, because the folk concerned cannot get in touch with a particular legal adviser and must chase around from one adviser to another? There is also the reverse problem, which affects people in this country who require visas to visit relatives in other countries. A constituent of mine has a scholarship to go to Africa in March, but is still waiting for a visa. Every time we contacted the authorities, we were told, "We will sort it out as soon as we can and when everything is complete." However, they told us as long ago as last November that everything was indeed complete. Nevertheless, there is still no visa.
    Ms Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the case he has raised, I will certainly look into it.
    Legal assistance can be channelled through the applicant's sponsor, which should make it easier for the applicant to gain access to such assistance. The sponsor's circumstances as well as those of the applicant will be taken into account.

    Magistrates (Warrington)
    Helen Jones: What progress has been made in appointing more people from the Warrington, North constituency to the magistracy in Warrington. [32370]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): There is no shortage of magistrates on the Warrington Bench; neither is there a shortage of magistrates from the Warrington, North constituency. However, there has been a slight decline in the number of magistrates from Warrington, North, from 59 per cent. of the total in 1997 to 57 per cent. now.

    67
    The local advisory committee is finding it harder to encourage people to put themselves forward to be magistrates in the Warrington area than in other areas of Cheshire. It has been working closely with the council and the press in an effort to encourage more people in the area to put themselves forward. Any help my hon. Friend can give will be warmly welcomed.
    Helen Jones: The problem in my constituency is recruitment from the poorer areas, which suffer the most crime. Is it not vital to the administration of justice for such areas to have representation on the Bench? Will the Minister consider running pilot projects to encourage people from those areas to apply, and also to help them with the interviewing process—or to establish why they do not get through the process when they do apply?
    Mr. Wills: The Department is deeply sensitive to those important points. We will shortly launch a national recruitment strategy that will take them all into account. I look forward to working with colleagues on these matters, and to making progress.
    Mr. John Burnett: I note that it is as difficult to find people with low incomes who are prepared to serve as magistrates in Warrington as it is to find such people elsewhere. It is very important for us to have a representative lay magistracy. Is the Department considering paying magistrates a reasonable sum, in Warrington and elsewhere, and appointing them for a period of, say, 10 years, which would not be renewable?
    Mr. Wills: Of course we must take account of financial loss when recruiting magistrates, and we do take it seriously, but there is no pressing evidence that potential magistrates are being deterred by financial hardship. There is nevertheless a great deal of concern about the issue, and we are looking into it. If it became apparent that there was a real, widespread problem, we would of course consider what research was needed to get to the bottom of it and what action should subsequently be taken.
    Obviously we shall look at all possible options for increasing diversity on the bench, in the context of our national recruitment strategy; but I fear that the hon. Gentleman's proposed option of fixed terms may not be our first port of call.

    Courthouse, Colchester
    Bob Russell: When he expects work to start on building the new courthouse at Colchester. [32371]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): It is planned that the work should start in early to mid-2004.
    Bob Russell: There is grave concern about the possibility that the introduction of the private finance initiative will cause the company involved to be more interested in profit than in the prestige of the building.
    68
    Can the Minister assure us that the PFI courthouse will be a building of which we can be proud, rather than just a profit generator for the company running it?
    Mr. Wills: As the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric suggests, he is well aware of the truth. The idea is to produce a new courthouse for Colchester, and a number of new courthouses throughout the country. No new courthouses have been built since 1992. The Department is currently supporting the building of 12 new courthouses, and I think that that is something of which we can all be proud.
    As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the start of work on his courthouse will depend on the completion of the outline business case and, critically in the context of his question, on a demonstration on the basis of the public sector comparator that the project represents value for money. That is the key: value for money.

    Criminal Courts (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What estimates his Department has made of the costs of the proposals by Lord Justice Auld for reorganisation of the criminal courts in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32373]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Estimates of costs will be made in the light of decisions that will be taken following the consultation on the report of Lord Justice Auld, which ended on 31 January. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, these decisions have not yet been taken and the Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the patent confusion that exists, as we know from information found in a pub off St. James's park, what is driving the Government's response to the Auld report? Is it cost savings or the interests of justice?
    Mr. Wills: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, our response to the Auld review is driven by our manifesto commitments and the results of the very wide consultation that we have just finished.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Royal Prerogative
    Jeremy Corbyn: What consideration he is giving to bringing the operation of the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny. [32380]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The royal prerogative is usually exercised by Ministers or on their advice. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their decisions, but I am always open to constructive ideas on strengthening scrutiny.
    Jeremy Corbyn: I am rather disappointed with my right hon. Friend's reply. Given his reforming zeal to

    69
    make the Executive accountable to Parliament, I had hoped that, at the very least, the absolute power of kings, transferred to the absolute power of Ministers, would finally be brought to public account. Will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals to ensure that every decision taken under the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister or any other Minister is openly and immediately reported to the House, open to debate and open to a vote before it can be taken to its completion? That would be a start in ensuring that democracy in Britain really works and that the Executive are accountable to the elected representatives of the people.
    Mr. Cook: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. I thought that I had crafted an open and welcoming answer on which my hon. Friend could build. I repeat that Ministers are accountable to this place. There can be no question of the Prime Minister or any other Minister of the Crown acting under the royal prerogative in a way that is unacceptable to the House of Commons. They would be very quickly brought to book by the House, and rightly so.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern about the use of the royal prerogative by Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister? In view of almost daily revelations about lobbying, favours and cash for coronets, will the Leader of the House consider the introduction of an ethical Question Time so that we can look at the moral ethics of Ministers when they use the royal prerogative?
    Mr. Cook: I am not sure quite how that supplementary arises from the matter in hand. We had extended discussions on party funding in the last Parliament. It was, after all, this Government who introduced legislation to make sure that party funding is transparent, open and accountable and can be received only by those in Britain. We are pleased with what we have done to clean up the act of party funding. It is a matter of great regret that Conservative Members did nothing about it in their 18 years of power.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Prime Minister's considerable powers rest largely on the royal prerogative. Why does he refuse to appear before the Select Committee on Public Administration to account for the decisions that he takes under those prerogative powers? I ask my right hon. Friend to intercede with the Prime Minister, ask him to break with precedent and come before the Public Administration Committee, where we will give him a gentle ride.
    Mr. Cook: I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's reference to a gentle ride. I am sure that we can build on that for the future in his relations with the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet.
    As my hon. Friend rightly says, there is a clearly established precedent. No Prime Minister has ever appeared before any Select Committee, and it is difficult to see where it would stop once the Prime Minister had appeared before any one Select Committee. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister comes here every week for Question Time. Indeed, he has a better record of attendance at Question Time than either of his two predecessors.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The Leader of the House was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Westminster Hall
    Fiona Mactaggart: If he will encourage the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to review the layout of the Chamber in Westminster Hall. [32381]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The Modernisation Committee has to consider the Westminster Hall experiment in the course of this Session, and will gladly consider any representations that hon. Members wish to make about the layout of the Chamber, or any other matter.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I wish to encourage the Committee to consult more widely among Members. Other people may have shared my sense of surprise when, following an intervention from a Member—admittedly, a very senior one—the layout of Westminster Hall was suddenly changed. Many of us felt that the original layout was greatly preferable, and I want to ensure that there is proper consultation before we get stuck with the present arrangements.
    Mr. Twigg: I understand that many Members preferred the original arrangement, on the grounds that it provided for a more consensual approach to debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Many other Members clearly prefer the current arrangements. Both the original and the present arrangements were part of an experiment and, through the Modernisation Committee, we shall have the opportunity to review both parts of that experiment before deciding how to take things forward.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Minister accept that, partly because of its layout, Westminster Hall has been a triumphant success? [Interruption.] That is true despite the misgivings of a tiny minority of Conservatives—in fact I think that it is now a minority of one. The success is largely due to the more consensual atmosphere that has developed, and the fact that all Members can hold Ministers to account in Westminster Hall. Does the Minister think that there may be some lesson to be learned about the layout of this Chamber, which is clearly out of date and presents the entirely anachronistic fiction of a two-party confrontational conflict, which is no longer the case in the 21st century?
    Mr. Twigg: I shall tread carefully in answering that question; I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats are offering to sit in the Gallery, but we do not have a great deal of spare space in this Chamber at the moment. I welcome the fact that the Conservative party appears to have changed its mind about Westminster Hall; I understand from press reports today that it now accepts the idea. When Westminster Hall was first proposed,

    71
    the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), described it as a godforsaken sideshow.
    Mr. Eric Forth indicated assent.
    Mr. Twigg: The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. He appears not to have changed his mind, but I understand that many other Conservative Members have changed theirs.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: As the number of requests from Back-Bench Members for Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall is now much larger than the number of available slots, will my hon. Friend also consider the possibility of recommending an increase in the time available there, to reflect the clear popularity of the innovation among Members?
    Mr. Twigg: In the memorandum that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House submitted to the Modernisation Committee shortly before Christmas, he set out plans for providing more opportunities for shorter debates, both on the Floor of the House and elsewhere. I am sure that the Select Committee will bear my hon. Friend's representations in mind as its work proceeds.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is extremely dangerous to disagree with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but may I do so? As one of those who has the duty of chairing sittings in Westminster Hall, I believe that the current layout is extremely satisfactory, not only for Members but also for the many visitors, the staff and the Government advisers who serve Ministers. Will the Minister accept it from me that with the current layout it is much easier to identify Members, which is important to ensure that Members of all parties have the opportunity to participate in the excellent debates in Westminster Hall, which has been a great success?
    Mr. Twigg: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in chairing debates in Westminster Hall. Certainly the intervention that he has made today, drawing on his experience, will be taken into account, along with what my hon. Friends have said.

    Information and Communications Technology
    David Taylor: What plans he has for a fuller utilisation of information and communications technology in processes of the House of Commons. [32382]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I hope that the House will make full use of ICT in its work. I understand that the Information Committee is to undertake an inquiry into the use of ICT, and I hope that we can draw upon its work.
    David Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the wholesale abstention by younger voters in June 2001 was at least partly rooted in their sense of detachment from an institution widely seen as mired in an era of quill pens and hansom cabs? Does he believe that there is potential
    72
    for e-democracy to reconnect this place with the electorate, by promoting and improving the consultation with them on the matters that we debate?
    Mr. Twigg: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, although I suspect that he has not yet persuaded the shadow Leader of the House. Clearly, we face a serious challenge in reconnecting young people with politics. As my hon. Friend may be aware, there is now a Cabinet committee on e-democracy. It will address many of the issues that have been raised. I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House chairs that committee.

    Electronic Voting
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What proposals he plans to make to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on electronic voting in Divisions. [32383]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): In my memorandum on modernisation, I posed the question whether views in the House on electronic voting had changed since hon. Members were consulted in the previous Parliament. I stressed in the memorandum that any acceptable form of electronic voting must require hon. Members to attend the Division in person, but that electronic voting could have the advantage of removing the need for multiple Divisions.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Leader of the House for that reply. Does he agree that one reason why Opposition Members value voting in person is that it is the one time of day when we can be sure of meeting as many of our colleagues and senior spokesmen as possible? Much can be carried out when we all know that we will meet at one place and one time. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that view is shared by Labour Members, or are Government Back Benchers and Ministers rather more reluctant to meet than their shadow counterparts?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into why Opposition Members prefer the present voting system. Given the present size of the official Opposition, I think that there are a number of halls in the building that could now accommodate them.
    Of course, the fact that hon. Members all come together at Division time is very important and valuable for the cohesion of the House, and for the parties represented here. I respect that, and that is why electronic voting would have to be introduced on the basis that hon. Members would vote in person. However, are Opposition Members really content with a system whereby three or four Divisions during a debate that is subject to a programme motion can mean that more than an hour is lost that could otherwise be used for debate and scrutiny?
    Mr. Peter Pike: I accept all the important points that my right hon. Friend has made about electronic

    73
    voting. Even though party Whips might not like the idea, does he also accept that we should consider whether any electronic system should be able to record an abstention?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important element of the debate. Indeed, the Modernisation Committee examined the subject in the previous Parliament and posed the same question. Plainly, the more modern and flexible the House is when it comes to voting systems, the more options are available. I still have an open mind on the question, but I believe that the House should be willing to explore ways in which we might make a modest advance in the way that we vote, which at present is based on the principle of the sheepfold.

    Prime Minister's Question Time
    Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): What representations he has received on the alteration of timing of questions to the Prime Minister. [32384]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had many discussions on his proposals for reforming the hours of this House, and those consultations will continue.
    Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for that elegant reply. I wish to make a plea on behalf of those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north of country. Will the Government oppose any proposal to move Prime Minister's Question Time to a slot before lunch, such as 12 noon or earlier? Many constituents have to travel a long way to attend Prime Minister's Question Time, which is now held on only one day each week. It would be extremely regrettable if further obstacles were put in their way in that respect.
    Mr. Twigg: The aim of the proposed reforms is to increase the effectiveness of the House as a whole, and to ensure that all hon. Members benefit, irrespective of the location of their constituencies. I understand the hon. Lady's concerns as they might apply to the start time on a Monday, which we are not proposing to change, or to our finish time on a Thursday or Friday. [Horn. MEMBERS: "For visitors.") I understand that the hon. Lady's question had to do with constituents. Constituents will want to visit the House at many different times during the week, and that is a factor that must be borne in mind. We propose that the House's hours on Wednesday mirror those on Thursday. It is fair to say that constituents are still able to visit the House on a Thursday, and that the experiment
    74
    with the hours on Thursday has proved to be very successful. [Interruption.] Clearly, not all hon. Members share that view. The debate will continue in the Modernisation Committee, and it will come back to the House once that Committee has reached a view.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was asked—

    Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
    David Winnick: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on progress in appointing the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [32386]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 6 February 2002, the House of Commons Commission has nominated for the post Mr. Philip Mawer, at present the Secretary General of the General Synod of the Church of England and Secretary General of the Archbishop's Council. That nomination is subject to the approval of the House, and the Leader of the House has indicated that the motion will be before the House tomorrow, 13 February.
    David Winnick: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but will he confirm that the existing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin, carried out her duties in a conscientious way and was impartial in investigating cases? Is he aware that many of us, certainly myself, believe that she has been, in effect, fired for carrying out her duties in that way? She has been a splendid public servant and it is most unfortunate that she is leaving in such circumstances.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I do not share it. I refer him to the nomination paper that will be before the House tomorrow when the motion is moved to appoint her successor. At paragraph 5, it says:
    "The House of Commons Commission would like to record its appreciation of Ms Filkin's dedication to work of the House. She has successfully brought a number of complex inquiries to a conclusion. Coupled with the Standards and Privileges Committee's consideration of reports presented to them, her work has fully validated the system of parliamentary self-regulation established following the recommendation of the first Nolan report."
    That is decidedly the view of the House of Commons Commission.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice, in connection with a private notice question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) last week. In column 748, the Foreign Secretary helpfully replied to my question by referring to the treaty of Utrecht, which, as hon. Members will recall, was drawn up in 1713. The House of Commons Library has helpfully furnished me with a copy of the treaty, which is in the original French.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members will seek to debate the treaty in future. Are we allowed to quote liberally from the French version or do we have to request an official English translation?
Mr. Speaker: I draw the attention of the hon. Lady to "Erskine May", page 371, which states:
"Speeches must be made in English, but quotation in another language has been allowed on occasion, though a translation should be provided."
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one would have any objection to quotations, but it might be useful to have a translation of the whole treaty in the Library, since one of the things that it does is to exchange Gibraltar for Florida. If we are to reopen negotiations, we could perhaps consider having Florida back.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has a point.

Waiting Time for Discharge From Hospital
3.33 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide an upper limit on the time that a person who is ready in all respects for discharge must wait before leaving an acute hospital.
On 4 July last year, the Prime Minister told hon. Members that
"bed blocking is probably the most urgent problem that we face in the national health service."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.]
According to the latest figures available—I have just been sent them—bed blocking has not got any better, nor has it stayed the same; it has got worse. Rather like Robespierre, the Prime Minister sees a wrecker around every street corner. His remarks on wrecking completely mystified those of us who have worked in the public services.
My Bill is constructive, for it deals with a situation that touches the lives of so many constituents as patients, carers and members of the caring professions. It sets a standard to which I believe no Government or no hon. Member could reasonably object.
"Bed blocker" is a horrible, pejorative term, but it has something of an advantage over the alternative term, delayed discharge, because it conveys something of the awfulness of what is going on.
The national beds inquiry found:
"At least two out of every 10 days spent by people aged over 65 in acute hospital beds could be better provided in alternative facilities such as intermediate care beds."
But all health statistics come with a health warning these days, for there are as many ways of tweaking the figures as there are hon. Members. Some bright spark recently realised that if the wheels were taken off a hospital trolley, it became a hospital bed and there were no more trolley waits. So it is better, then, to rely on the press. Indeed, it is thanks to the Daily Mail that the Government had to concede in October that, during the year, there had been more than 680,000 elderly bed blockers.
Our dear old friend the postcode lottery pops up to produce a huge disparity across the country and even between localities served by individual trusts. For example, the Royal United hospital, Bath, finds it more difficult to discharge my constituents than it does to discharge people from other districts. People wait to get out, so people have to wait to get in. The Prime Minister was forced to admit during last week's questions that the number of operations that had been cancelled has risen substantially since 1997, and it now emerges that that number has risen as a proportion of operations performed.
Last week, a London consultant told me that bed blocking was so bad in his hospital that patients regularly have to sleep on the floor. In the 21st century in Britain, patients are sleeping on hospital floors. Those of us with first-hand experience as in-patients will know full well that life on a hospital ward is unsettling whether or not people are fortunate enough to have a bed—for the elderly, that would be a gross understatement.
Hospitals cannot always cure people; they cannot always make them feel much better, but at least they can ensure that they do them no harm. Busy hospitals are

77
dangerous, profoundly unsatisfactory places for elderly patients to be for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. The consequences of delayed discharge—hospital-acquired infection, deep vein thrombosis and bed sores—may seem like small beer to the fit and healthy specimens in the Chamber, but they represent the grim reaper for many debilitated patients.
The Government will say that they are working hard to tackle bed blocking, but before we get too excited about increased funding, we should note that the King's Fund thinks that activity has actually declined, and the reason, very largely, is that the system is all blocked up. In response, the Government have tipped a wheelbarrow of extra cash on to social services, but the National Care Homes Association has said that that money represents little more than a sticking plaster.
The Health Act 1999 made my Bill possible. My cue lies with the increased flexibility as between health and social services that it introduced, but experience from Northern Ireland suggests that it is unlikely that the joint working arrangements that the Act encourages will alone magic away bed blocking. Funding increases for the national health service have far outstripped social services. Logically, that should drive up in-patient activity, but what happens downstream? The balance is clearly wrong, as the King's Fund has pointed out.
The bed blocking Bill would make two assumptions: first, that patients who are ready for discharge are better off supported in their own homes or in homely settings in the community; and secondly, that insufficient community care and support is the greatest single impediment to timely discharge. The Bill would facilitate a model based
78
on the Swedish approach to delayed discharges. That hugely successful innovation provides for cash transfers and penalties between agencies to achieve bed blocking targets.
Bed blocking is not just the result of finite resources; it is the result of the resources being used inappropriately. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) revealed that it costs £1,630 to have someone in hospital for a week and £319 for a week in a care home. Where is the sense in that?
The wait for admission is resource dependent, but the wait for discharge need not be, and both would be eased by a Bill that sets a maximum wait beyond an agreed discharge date. The date would be agreed by the relevant agencies on a case-by-case basis and would be supported by the cross-transfer of funds. This is such a reasonable measure that hon. Members who seek to wreck it will have a great deal of explaining to do in their constituencies, and I am very sure that there are no wreckers in this place. I ask the House to support my bed blocking Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Andrew Murrison, Dr. Richard Taylor, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Peter Duncan and Mr. Robert Key.

Waiting Time for Discharge From Hospital
  WAITING TIME FOR DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL
  Dr. Andrew Murrison accordingly presented a Bill to provide an upper limit on the time that a person who is ready in all respects for discharge must wait before leaving an acute hospital: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 93].
Orders of the Day
  Employment Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Employment Bill
    New Clause 6

      COMPLAINTS ABOUT GRIEVANCES
      '(1) This section applies to the jurisdictions listed in Schedule [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section [Complaints about grievances] applies].
      (2) An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—

      (a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 applies, and

      (b) the requirement has not been complied with.

      (3) An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—

      (a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 has been complied with, and

      (b) less than 28 days have passed since the day on which the requirement was complied with.

      (4) An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—

      (a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 has been complied with, and

      (b) the day on which the requirement was complied with was more than one month after the end of the original time limit for making the complaint.

      (5) In such circumstances as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations, an employment tribunal may direct that subsection (4) shall not apply in relation to a particular matter.
      (6) An employment tribunal shall be prevented from considering a complaint presented in breach of subsections (2) to (4), but only if—

      (a) the breach is apparent to the tribunal from the information supplied to it by the employee in connection with the bringing of the proceedings, or

      (b) the tribunal is satisfied of the breach as a result of his employer raising the issue of compliance with those provisions in accordance with regulations under section 7 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17) (employment tribunal procedure regulations).

      (7) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of this section by regulations—

      (a) make provision about the application of the procedures set out in Part 2 of Schedule 2;

      (b) make provision about what constitutes compliance with paragraph 6 or 9 of that Schedule;

      (c) make provision about circumstances in which a person is to be treated as having complied with paragraph 6 or 9 of that Schedule;

      (d) make provision for paragraph 6 or 9 of that Schedule to have effect in such circumstances as may be specified by the regulations with such modifications as may be so specified.

      (8) The Secretary of State may by order—

      (a) amend, repeal or replace any of subsections (2) to (4);

      (b) amend Schedule [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section [Complaints about grievances] applies];

      80

      (c) make provision for this section to apply, with or without modifications, as if—

      (i) any individual of a description specified in the order who would not otherwise be an employee for the purposes of this section were an employee for those purposes, and

      (ii) a person of a description specified in the order were, in the case of any such individual, the individual's employer for those purposes.

      (9) Before making an order under subsection (8)(a), the Secretary of State must consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
      (10) In its application to orders under subsection (8)(a), section 51(1)(b) includes power to amend this section.'.—[Alan Johnson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.41 pm
      The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, leave out subsections (8) to (10).
      Government amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 52.
      Government new schedule 1—Tribunal jurisdictions to which section [Complaints about grievances] applies.
      Alan Johnson: Clause 33 contains general powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations preventing complaints from being presented to tribunals before all or part of the relevant statutory procedures have been followed. It is an important clause that is designed to ensure that complaints are first raised internally before being taken to a tribunal. It also has implications for access to the tribunal system.
      In Committee, I explained in detail how we planned to use these powers. I explained how we intended to set several simple criteria that tribunals would apply when deciding whether to admit a complaint. Given the issue's importance, I consider, on reflection, that there are advantages to providing more detail about the policy in primary legislation, which should narrow the role for secondary legislation. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the benefits of including more detail in the Bill.

      Let me proceed by describing how the new clause works. As I said, its main purpose is to set new admissibility criteria that tribunals will apply to certain categories of complaints brought by employees. The criteria are set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the new clause. I should mention first that the criteria would apply only in relation to tribunal complaints arising out of grievances. They would have no application to complaints arising out of disciplinary action.
      There are three criteria. First, the employee must have completed step one of the statutory grievance procedure. That means that the employee must have set out the grievance in writing and sent a copy to the employer. Secondly, 28 days or more must have passed since step one had been completed. That minimum 28-day period gives time for the parties to discuss the grievance and try to resolve the problem. The third criterion deals with the special case in which an employee may have failed to meet the other criteria with an initial application. For example, the employee may have failed to send the step one letter to the employer. We do not want to deny the

      81
      employee access to the tribunals in such circumstances. Instead, the employee would be given another chance to submit a valid application. That would often involve extending the normal period for making applications to tribunals, using the powers under clause 32.
      We want to ensure, however, that the grievance is quickly brought to the employer's attention during any extended period. That should ensure that recollection of the events surrounding the grievance remains fresh. We therefore stipulate in subsection (4) that the step one action must have been completed within a period of no more than a month after the normal period for making applications to tribunals has ended. For most jurisdictions, the normal period for bringing complaints is three months. For those jurisdictions, the third criterion means that the step one action needs to be taken within four months of the event that gave rise to the grievance.
      New schedule 1 to the new clause lists the jurisdictions to which the admissibility regime was intended to apply. However, the criteria will not apply to unfair dismissal, other than to cases involving constructive dismissal, because dismissal is a disciplinary matter. We also think that with the exception of constructive dismissal, the criteria should not apply to ex-employees. That exclusion will be covered by regulations under subsection (7) of the new clause. The regulations will also define those particular cases—extreme bullying and the threat of violence—in which an employee should not be obliged to complete even step one of the grievance procedure.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: Why is it unreasonable for an employee to complete step one even in such extreme cases? After all, it only involves writing a letter, which is hardly intimidating in any circumstances.
      Alan Johnson: It depends on the circumstances. It would be wrong to insist that an employee write to an employer in cases involving, for instance, serious violence against an employee by an employer or racial or sexual harassment. We should not force the employee in those circumstances to open up a dialogue with the employer. However, that will be dealt with in regulations and those are subject to consultation.
      The criteria are simple to understand and it should be relatively easy for tribunals and the parties to ascertain whether they have been met. There is limited scope for parties to dispute whether a case should be admitted. In most cases, there will be no need for tribunals to hold preliminary hearings to assess compliance.
      Subsection (8) of the new clause gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to change the admissibility criteria if necessary. It is prudent to take that power in case experience shows that the criteria need to be amended. Subsection (9) requires the Secretary of State to consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service before exercising the power. The power also allows us to extend the regime to non-employees if necessary.
      Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 deal with consequential matters. Amendment No. 47 ensures that clause 32, which is on time limits, includes a necessary reference to the new schedule. Amendment No. 48 deletes clause 33 and amendment No. 52 makes a consequential change to clause 51.
      82
      The group of amendments greatly improves the Bill and makes our intentions plain. It constructs a workable and sensible admissibility regime to ensure that most grievances are aired before they are taken to tribunals. The regulations will build in safeguards to ensure access to justice.
      Mr. Hammond: I declare an interest as an employer. I hope that we will hear very full declarations of interest from hon. Members on both sides of the House either as employers or as recipients of the largesse of trade unions, in the form of sponsorship of their constituency parties.
      As the Minister said, the purpose of the new clause is to include in the Bill—
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman invites hon. Members to declare an interest. That is a reasonable request and I am a member of a trade union. However, as there is no such thing as sponsorship, will you clarify whether it is necessary for members of trade unions to declare an interest?
      Mr. Speaker: If a matter is recorded in the register, it should be declared. If it is not, it is up to hon. Members to decide what to do. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Hammond: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, following recent clarifications of the rules, it is not necessary for hon. Members to list sponsorship of their constituency parties in the register. However, as we will discuss amendments and new clauses that are a clear and well established part of the Trades Union Congress agenda, it will help people who are interested in the debate to know whether the hon. Members who propose them—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. When those matters are before the House, hon. Members will decide what to do. At the moment, we are debating new clause 6 and the associated amendments, and the hon. Gentleman should stick to that subject.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to you, as ever, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance.
      As the Minister advised the House, new clause 6 includes in the Bill measures that would otherwise have been provided in regulations under clause 33, which is now deleted. It is interesting that the Government have chosen to include in the Bill detailed procedures that would otherwise have been introduced by regulation. Many clauses leave matters to be disposed of by regulation, and the Government have chosen this one clause for special treatment—removing the regulation-making power and adding a fairly lengthy new clause that spells out in detail the procedure to be followed.
      Interestingly, in its briefing to members of the Standing Committee the TUC suggested that it expected the Government to table amendments to clause 33. Conservative Members were somewhat surprised that no such amendments were forthcoming in Committee, but it seems that the TUC was ahead of Parliament in knowing the Government's intentions, and their agenda—or perhaps I should say the TUC's agenda—has now been revealed.

      83
      In Committee, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members urged the Government to reveal the details of the regulations that would arise from many clauses; so will the Minister explain why the provisions in clause 33 need to be spelled out while others do not?
      Grouped with the new clause is new schedule 1, which is an interesting device because, subject to a minor amendment that the Government will move later, it is identical to schedule 3. The only plausible explanation is that the Government intend, at some point in the future, to amend one or other of the schedules through regulation so that different jurisdictions apply to two different parts of the Bill. That is an unsatisfactory way for a Government to proceed.
      The original decision—that it would not be necessary for an employee to have gone through the entire statutory grievance procedure before being able to bring a case before a tribunal—was a concession to lobbying from the trade union movement. That is clear from the briefing that the TUC put out for Second Reading and to the Committee. Now, an employee will have had only to write a letter to his employer outlining his grievance and then to wait 28 days before instigating proceedings in a tribunal. It is not clear to Conservative Members that that will have the effect claimed by the Government of significantly reducing the number of cases that come before tribunals.
      I should like to probe the Minister a little further on the provision in the new clause for the Secretary of State, by regulation, to exclude certain classes of case from the requirement to have taken the first step. As I told the House in my intervention on the Minister, the first step consists only of writing a letter. I find it difficult to imagine a case in which the obligation to write a letter to one's employer outlining the grievance was so traumatic that it would be better to provide that the employee shall go straight to an employment tribunal.
      I can understand how the provision got into the Bill. The original thinking was that the complete statutory procedure would have to be gone through before recourse to an employment tribunal, so there would of course be cases in which a face-to-face confrontation between employer and employee would be inappropriate—for example, in cases involving violence or allegations of sexual harassment. However, I am unable to think of a single substantial class of case in which it would be inappropriate to impose on the employee a requirement only to write a letter. I shall be grateful if the Minister, using the considerable resources of ingenuity available to him, comes up with at least one convincing example, so that the House can understand the need for the power to exclude.
      The matter is causing employers' organisations some degree of concern. That concern flows from a fact that will be a recurring theme this afternoon: that the Government are under obvious pressure from trade unions to concede yet more. Every time the Secretary of State is given a power by regulation to concede the agenda of the TUC, there is a danger that further concessions will be made in the wider horse trading that apparently goes on between the Government and the TUC.
      The Opposition are concerned that a loophole is built into new clause 6 and that the Bill including new clause 6 will not have the impact that the Government desire, in terms of reducing the number of tribunal cases. We are
      84
      aware of the need to monitor the effectiveness of the provisions to ensure that they deliver the benefit for which the Government, employers and responsible trade unions hope—of reducing the number of cases that go to employment tribunals without those involved even embarking on existing in-work procedures for dispute resolution.
      I wish to draw the House's attention to new clause 6(6). The procedure outlined therein departs from, or goes beyond, what the Minister described to the Committee. Subsection (6)(a) is unlikely to apply: it is unlikely that an employee will bring to a tribunal a case in which the information that he lays is such as to disqualify him from bringing it on the face of the facts. Subsection (6)(b), if I understand the provision correctly, places on the employer the responsibility for drawing the employment tribunal's attention to the fact that the employee has failed to go through the correct procedures under the statutory procedure laid down in schedule 2.
      Will the Minister clarify whether an employer's failure to draw the tribunal's attention at the appropriate point to the failure of the employee to exhaust, or at least embark on, the statutory procedure will preclude that matter being dealt with at a later stage? In other words, if the employer—perhaps through ignorance: he may be a small business man who is unfamiliar with the now increasingly complex body of law—fails to draw the tribunal's attention at the appropriate point during consideration of procedural matters to the fact that the employee has not written the requisite letter and waited the requisite 28 days, or whatever period regulations specify, will it be impossible for a subsequent finding against the employer to be set aside on the grounds that the employee did not follow the correct procedure? I hope that the Minister will clarify that. It would be a further burden on employers if at that stage they had to identify the problem, so as to avoid being subjected to a decision of wrongfulness in the light of the facts.
      4 pm
      Amendment No. 47 sets out a power to vary new schedule 1 from time to time. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he has in mind in varying the schedule. He must have something in mind; otherwise there would be no point in introducing a new schedule that is identical to a schedule that is already in the Bill. It is clear that the Minister intends to introduce changes at some stage.
      Amendment (a) seeks to delete subsections (8) to (10). The subsections give the Secretary of State a power to amend the grounds for exclusions of a claim. The Government appear to be seeking to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they want to put the detailed provision of the regulations in the Bill. Presumably they have been told to do so by the TUC. On the other hand, they want to retain a power fundamentally to amend, by changing the grounds on which claims to a tribunal would be excluded by regulation. Surely that is not the appropriate way in which to proceed. Having decided not to use regulation and to set out provisions in the Bill, the Government should get things right the first time. They should stick to their guns and exclude subsection (8).
      Subsections (9) and (10) would be excluded by the amendment, because they depend on subsection (8). I look forward with interest to the Minister's response.
      Brian Cotter: I, too, should like to refer to a reference in the Register of Members' Interests. I am the managing director of a company, an interest to which I have referred before. I naturally have an interest in these matters.
      I am pleased that the Government have decided to remove the controversial clause 33 and to replace it with a clause that seems far more sensible and will add greater clarity, which is what we were looking for. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to clause 33 before we embarked on Report. We were concerned that the clause, as it stood, could act as a barrier to justice for tribunal applicants with valid cases.
      We are concerned that it would be inappropriate to rule out claims altogether where they concern sexual harassment or racial abuse, for example. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to the issue and wanted clarification, which I expect the Minister will give.
      There may be cases where a woman is being exposed to sexual harassment or intimidation of some sort. She might feel so nervous and concerned that even sending a letter could pose a problem. If violence could be involved, for example, she might fear some form of retribution. She might be concerned about stirring things up. I am sure that the Minister will have some general thoughts about that.
      The Minister has said that applicants will be required to send only written notice of the grievance to the employer and wait 28 days for a response before an application to a tribunal can be made. That is fair enough. I acknowledge that it would be reasonable to expect most employees to take the first step, but I still have concerns. That is why we tabled an amendment.
      In Committee, the Minister seemed to agree with me when he said:
      "We recognise, however, that there will be rare cases in which the threat of violence or serious personal harassment may make it dangerous or intimidating for applicants to take step one action before making an application."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 December 2001; c. 196.]
      I am sure that the Minister will explain what he meant by that and perhaps provide clarification. In addition, as the Law Society pointed out, the national minimum wage enforcement agency does not require workers who are not receiving the minimum wage to take up matters with their employer first, which might serve to increase their vulnerability. Yet
      "detriment in relation to national minimum wage"
      is apparently still covered by the new clause; section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is cited in the new schedule.
      How will new clause 6 operate in conjunction with other statutory rights, such as the right to paid leave? Will the Minister repeat the assurance that he gave on Second Reading on the original clause 33 and clarify the application of new clause 6 to other measures? Can he explain who will be in a position to decide whether or not the exception is applicable, and whether applicants have a legitimate reason for taking action? Will that be for the tribunal to determine at a preliminary hearing and would it not cause further complications in tribunal proceedings? In such cases, will the second chance, which will allow the applicant to go back and complete the grievance procedure—referred to by the Minister on 18 December in Committee—apply to new clause 6? If so, does the
      86
      Minister share the Law Society's concerns that such an action may sour relations between employees and employers?
      Finally, can the Minister provide an assurance that applicants who do not give the correct legal label to a grievance in their written statement will not be prevented from pursuing their claim in an employment tribunal? How will that influence what is brought up in the original written statement, and how much influence will the written statement have on proceedings at the later tribunal? I look forward to the Minister's reply, but generally we welcome the fact that the problem raised in Committee has been addressed.
      Mr. Mark Prisk: Radical reform of employment tribunals is long overdue. Talking to the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the CBI, I have learned that there has been an extraordinary increase in the number of cases taken to employment tribunals. In just 10 years, the figure has risen by 300 per cent., which cannot be good for industrial relations or the economy as a whole.
      Rob Marris: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House about the decline in the number of days lost through strikes in the same 10-year period?
      Mr. Prisk: I am not in a position to deal with that claim. I am concerned with the way in which industrial relations will work from now on. As an MP with a legal background, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman may like to add to his point later.
      Mr. Mark Simmonds: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend and, through him, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Maths). In the financial year 1997–98, 254,000 days were lost as a result of strike action. In the first 10 months of last year, 325,000 days were lost, which is a significant increase since the Labour party came to power.
      Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least in helping me to channel that information to the House. The fact that 130,000 cases were taken to employment tribunals in 2000 clearly needs to be addressed; that is the principle on which I welcome the Bill's aspirations. It is clear from the CBI and the Institute of Directors that the cost to business of those cases is now about £633 million. Beyond the cost alone, it cannot be right that cases are immediately brought to court; they should be dealt with in the workplace.
      New clause 6 tries to rebalance the responsibilities in the workplace, and for that reason it is welcome, in principle. The Bill sets out clear and, in some cases, quite prescriptive requirements on employers for dealing with complaints, grievances and so on, as the Minister described at length on Second Reading and in Committee. It seems only right, therefore, that we should require employees equally to accept responsibility to begin a complaint or a grievance in the workplace, and not immediately to run to the courts.
      I welcome the requirement that the employee should first write a letter—that seems common sense—and that there should be 28-day waiting period, which also makes

      87
      sense. Before the Minister thinks that I am going too soft, however, I shall raise one or two concerns. My first relates to new clause 6 because the Secretary of State still has reserved powers to exclude certain individuals. I reiterate the concern expressed by the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors that that power should not be overused. I hope that the Minister will reassure me and those employers representatives that the power will not be overexercised.
      My second concern is that although responsibilities are being introduced for employees in an attempt to balance the responsibilities already sought for employers, those seem a little inadequate. There is merely a requirement that the employee should write a letter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) rightly pointed out. It is not a requirement to meet, to sit down and to have an intelligent and reasonable dialogue to sort out the differences. The Bill is prescriptive in the requirements that it places on employers to act, yet the Government seem reluctant to introduce similarly prescriptive measures for employees. It is that slight imbalance which worries me.
      If it is right to set out three steps for employers, surely it is right to set out at least two steps—to write and to meet—for employees. Although I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) that in extreme cases individual members of an organisation might not want a face-to-face meeting, that is a rare example. Wherever possible, we should encourage employees to write, to meet and to have a dialogue.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: As a full-time trade union official until last June, it is clear to me that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the process. If the employee wrote a letter and was then invited to a disciplinary hearing, and did not attend, and if the case reached an industrial tribunal, it would be deemed unfair anyway, so I do not understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.
      Mr. Prisk: The purpose of the new clause is to encourage employees to take responsibility. I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I do claim to have worked in small businesses.
      Mr. Hammond: Perhaps my hon. Friend should point out that it is the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) who does not understand what we are talking about. We are dealing with grievances, not discipline.
      Mr. Prisk: I was too polite to do that, and I shall try to maintain that air of civility. My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps the hon. Member for North Durham will bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.
      There seems to be a strange omission from the Bill. It is fine to introduce a clearly defined and prescriptive set of proposals for employers, but there is a hesitancy to do the same with regard to employees. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House why that omission exists. In conclusion, I welcome the purpose behind the new clause. What concerns me is that it seems, unusually for the Minister, to lack the confidence to see that through.
      Mr. Simmonds: I, too, begin by declaring an interest: I am an employer in and outside the House.
      88
      I hope that the Government share my view that the main purpose of new clause 6 is to reduce the number of cases that go to a tribunal. I welcome more detailed provision for that in the Bill rather than through regulations. I should like the Minister to offer a cast-iron guarantee or to express belief that the new clause will reduce the number of applications that go to tribunals.
      4.15 pm
      Many employer organisations share my deep concern that the new clause will not have the impact that I described, and that an increasing number of cases will continue to go to appeals tribunals. The figures are staggering. In 1988–89, just over 29,000 tribunal applications were submitted; in 1997–98, the figure exceeded 80,000; in 2000–01, it was comfortably over 130,000. Clearly, the number of applications to tribunals has increased dramatically. I believe that that is a direct result of many policies that the Government have introduced since they came to power in 1997.
      Norman Lamb: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of new rights for employees expanded considerably when the Conservative Government were in power? That led to increases in the number of claims that were taken to tribunals.
      Mr. Simmonds: I am not arguing against employees' rights. There is a balance to be struck between employees' rights and employers' responsibilities. However, since 1997, matters have accelerated and employment relations have been damaged. Personnel Today stated that
      "the raft of legislative changes brought in under the Employment Relations Act 1999 is the chief factor behind the big rise in tribunal claims reported by ACAS".
      Nothing in the new clause will stop that acceleration.
      I generally support the clause, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) about the open-ended list of exceptions. I should like the Minister to show us that our anxieties are not well founded.
      I would go slightly further than my hon. Friend on subsection (6)(a). I cannot foresee any circumstances in connection with bringing proceedings in which an employee would inform a tribunal that he or she had not complied with the procedure, thereby barring themselves from obtaining a tribunal application. The provision is therefore superfluous.
      The Minister did not enjoy receiving the letter from Judge Prophet; indeed, he provided a robust and speedy response, which he copied to us all for which I am grateful. He made a pertinent point about an employee who is dismissed and therefore entitled to redundancy payment. If the employer refuses to pay, how does the internal grievance procedure apply to someone who is no longer an employee? Is such a case one of the exceptions that the Minister proposes to make through regulations under the new clause, or will the employee have to write to the employer to express his grievance after he has been made redundant?
      Ms Joan Walley: I shall speak briefly. I declare that I am a member of Unison and declare my constituency arrangements: my constituency Labour party has an agreement with the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians.

      89
      I want to give credit to the Minister for having taken account of the representations made to him not only in Committee but on behalf of people in constituencies such as mine, who had a great fear that, if clause 33 as originally drafted had stood part of the legislation, people would not have been able to take their case straight to a tribunal, and would have been excluded. I wanted a great deal of consultation about the regulations that would have come into force if the original clause 33 had remained part of the Bill.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the attention that he has paid to those of us who had concerns about this aspect of admissibility in respect of clause 33. He has been kind enough to listen to me, and said that this provision will now mean that people will not be excluded. I have listened to some of the comments made by Conservative Members, particularly in relation to people who have lost their jobs. The new clause, assuming that it will stand part of the Bill without being altered to a significant extent elsewhere—
      Mr. Hammond: Several hon. Members have attempted to draw the Minister on which classes of people are to be excluded from this provision, so enabling them to apply to a tribunal without going through the procedures. If the hon. Lady has any inside information on that as a result of her correspondence with the Minister and her Labour party channels, would she be good enough to share it with us?
      Ms Walley: I would be very happy to place in the Library a copy of the Minister's response to me. If, however, the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have any prior knowledge of this matter, he is mistaken. I am simply one of 659 Members who take a keen interest in the Bill.
      My main concern about the original clause 33 related to cases of bullying, for example, in which people might feel that they could not raise the matter with their employer before taking it to an employment tribunal for fear of harassment. I was worried that such people might genuinely be prevented from taking their case forward, and the new clause takes considerable account of the representations that have been made on that issue.
      Mr. Hammond: I am genuinely puzzled. The hon. Lady is outlining a scenario in which someone would be afraid to write a letter to their employer in case they suffered harassment for doing so, yet not be afraid of suffering harassment for applying to an employment tribunal. Surely the two are entirely comparable in terms of the risk to which the employee is exposed. Why is writing a letter more risky than applying to an employment tribunal?
      Ms Walley: We are talking about a question of balance. The Government are absolutely right to concentrate on ensuring that the resolution of disputes can take place first and foremost in the workplace, and that the process should not have to go all the way to an employment tribunal. I accept that that is the Government's intention, and that is what I want to happen. I can, however, envisage certain scenarios in which people who had suffered sexual harassment or intimidation, for example, or who had been
      90
      bullied, could have been prevented from taking their case forward under the original clause 33. I therefore want to record my praise for the Minister's having taken account of those concerns.
      I have one further point, to which I hope my hon. Friend will reply. A slightly more complex set of arrangements is now being proposed, and people who cannot reach an employment tribunal in the first instance might be able to come back and make a second application. Perhaps organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux could find out how they might be able to advise and represent such people, because I would not want them to be excluded from access to the kind of representation that they might now need to reach an employment tribunal.
      Mr. George Osborne: I shall speak briefly to new clause 6 and, particularly, to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends. I want to begin by saying how much I enjoyed serving on the Standing Committee. It was a pleasure to watch two great professionals, the Minister for Employment and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) proceed with the business. It was noticeable that, when junior Ministers took the place of the Minister of State, the standard of debate dropped considerably. I have probably done for the Minister's career, but there we go.
      Like other Opposition Members, in general I welcome the fact that the Government are including in legislation what would otherwise be dealt with through statutory instruments and regulations. That is a good idea in principle, and I also welcome the attempt to require employees to go through a basic minimum procedure before heading straight for the employment tribunal. However, like other Opposition Members, I am extremely concerned to know the categories of people that might be excluded from that procedure.
      Even those who have suffered the grossest sexual or racial abuse in the workplace should at least be able to record the incident on a piece of paper. Indeed, in Committee we discussed the benefit of conducting more of the procedure in writing, and I remember with fondness that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) supported us on that point. His support was welcome and it certainly cheered up a rather dull day.
      I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). I assume that the purpose of new clause 6 and other such provisions is to reduce the number of cases going to employment tribunals. Indeed, the Government's regulatory impact assessment suggests that the Bill could reduce them by between 30,000 and 40,000. That would be greatly welcomed by Members on both sides of the House if it proves true, but, like many other people and outside organisations, I have my doubts.
      The Bill will introduce a load of new employment rights, including paternity rights and rights for adoptive parents, which I welcome, but it will also introduce new rights for union learning representatives and a complicated new power relating to flexible working, which I do not welcome. I would not be at all surprised if the legislation increased the numbers going to

      91
      employment tribunals, and it would be interesting to have on record the Minister's assessment of its likely impact on those numbers.
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made the usual pantomime points about Trades Union Congress briefings, and so on. One minute, we in the Department of Trade and Industry are accused of being the provisional wing of the Confederation of British Industry, and the next he redresses the balance by saying that we take all our instructions from the TUC. Of course, we do neither. We listen carefully to both sides, and unlike the previous Conservative Government, who seemed to have an aversion to free and independent trade unions, we think that the trade union voice is important. We have listened to it carefully, but no more so than to other voice.
      On admissibility, our response to "Routes to Resolution", which was published almost three months ago, made perfectly clear our belief that the provision should apply to grievances only. I shall deal with some questions that were asked on that point, particularly by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), but I should point out that, as the response to "Routes to Resolution" made clear, there was no debate about whether we would apply admissibility simply to step one of the grievance procedure.
      In Committee, the debate concerned whether the provision should be included in the Bill or in regulations and whether clause 33 was drawn too widely in terms of its operation. Our view was that, on balance, it would help the House if we amended the Bill to clarify the admissibility clause, thereby preventing any hares from running in respect of its use and application.
      4.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked why we proposed to include two identical schedules. It was a prudent move. New schedule 1 is indeed identical to schedule 3, but there may be occasions in the future—although we do not envisage them now—when we want different jurisdictions to apply to the very new admissibility clause and to the measures in schedule 3. The two schedules are identical, but they may not always be, although we have no plans to change anything at this stage.
      Mr. Hammond: Is the Minister seriously saying that he is including two identical schedules in case he wants to change one of them at some time in the future, but that he has absolutely no intention of doing so? That has staggering implications. Why not include two of every clause and every schedule in every Bill, just in case the Government want to change one of them by regulation at some future stage?
      Alan Johnson: We will consider that suggestion carefully. All I know at this stage is that we are moving into uncharted territory in respect of admissibility, and I think it prudent to ensure that the jurisdictions are separated.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to subsection (6)(b), and the employer's challenge to the making of admissibility criteria at an early stage. We consider that reasonable. We do not want the questions to hang around until there is a
      92
      full hearing at an employment tribunal; that would mean devoting extra time and resources to cases that would otherwise be inadmissible. Our approach is workable, and we think that it will ensure that preliminary issues are handled expeditiously.
      The hon. Gentleman made a point about the step one letter that was made consistently by Opposition Members. They omitted one important consideration. Step one involves not just writing to the employer, but allowing a period of 28 days. Although there is no requirement for a hearing in new clause 6, we think that the 28-day period would enable employee and employer to discuss the grievance at the heart of the problem.
      We intend the exceptions to be genuine exceptions. We want as few as possible, but we think it advisable for them to be made in some rare circumstances. It must be beyond doubt that the time will be used productively, and the letter must concern a case of serious sexual harassment, violence or intimidation. It must be clear that there is no possibility of the issue being resolved in 28 days, because the trust and the relationship have broken down completely—although the employee is still in the workplace. We will regulate for such exceptions, and consult on them.
      Mr. Michael Weir: How would this statutory procedure sit with companies' internal grievance procedures? I know from my long experience as a lawyer that when cases reach tribunals there is often a lot of discussion about the fairness of the internal procedure that was carried out initially. Would the statutory procedure override existing grievance procedures?
      Alan Johnson: We seem to have moved on to disciplinary procedures. Given that an employee was allowed to be informed of the so-called offence that had been committed, to discuss it with the employer—unless it was an offence of gross misconduct—and was granted the right of appeal, internal disciplinary and grievance procedures would not breach the basic three and two-step criteria.
      That brings me to a point raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). They ask what effect the new clause will have and say that it does not go far enough. At present, 6 million workers have no recourse to any grievance or disciplinary procedures in the workplace. Some 600,000 workplaces have no procedures, and a further 340,000 have substandard procedures.
      Mr. Simmonds: Does the Minister accept that a large proportion of those workplaces have voluntary systems that work very successfully?
      Alan Johnson: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by voluntary systems. If they are voluntary, they are not recorded, and the employee does not know that he or she has recourse to them. I am referring to workplaces where there is no procedure whatever. There are reports in today's newspapers of an horrific case of someone who was dismissed and had no right of appeal because there was no internal procedure to allow that.
      I fully accept that people are more aware of their rights. Thanks to this Government, they have more rights to be aware of—we do not apologise for that. Given article 13,

      93
      which outlaws discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and age, it is almost inconceivable that the number of tribunal cases will not rise. However, we estimate that between 30,000 and 40,000 cases that go to employment tribunals could be resolved in the workplace if the procedure existed to deal with complaints or grievances there.
      Mr. Mark Field: I appreciate what the Minister says. However, the acid test of the Bill in terms of improving employees' rights will be if more cases go before employment tribunals. My concern is that that will be seen as a mark of success. I ran a small business before coming to this place, and I am not sure what our procedures were. They were certainly not written down in a massive booklet—not that there was any problem in that regard, I hasten to add. I may well have qualified as one of the 600,000 employers mentioned. There has been increasing awareness of employee rights, with more people rushing to use employment tribunals as a first rather than a last resort. That has to be the underlying concern, given all the waste that would result for business.
      Alan Johnson: I do not know about people rushing to use employment tribunals as a first recourse. However, people who have no other outlet to resolve their problem will go to an employment tribunal and slap in their IT 1.
      Business organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses, support this simple fact: having a basic procedure in the workplace must be preferable to airing problems at a full-blown employment tribunal.
      Mr. Hammond: Let me go back five minutes. If someone submits his grievance in writing within 28 days—I am not talking about an exception case in which harassment or something similar has taken place—and the employer suggests meeting to sort it out, the employee is entitled to ignore that and go ploughing off to the tribunal anyway. Will the Minister confirm that the Government's original intention was that the entire statutory procedure should be exhausted before there was access to a tribunal? Will he confirm that he has backed down, watering down the proposals during the Bill's consideration to the point where an employee can ignore the employer offering a grievance meeting and go straight to a tribunal?
      Alan Johnson: No. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It was never our intention that every case must exhaust the discipline and grievance procedure prior to being allowed into the employment tribunal procedure. The hon. Gentleman should read our response to the "Routes to Resolution" document published last November, in which we talked about grievances.
      The other point being missed is mitigation. Elsewhere in the Bill there is the right for an employment tribunal to take action if it believes that either the employee or the employer has not followed the procedures. First, if the employer has not carried out the basic three-step procedure and there has been a dismissal, that dismissal is automatically deemed unfair. Secondly, if the employee or the employer, without good reason—one of the
      94
      exceptions such as racial harassment or bullying, for example—did not go through the full procedure but came to the tribunal before completing stage two or three, the award can be mitigated by between 10 and 50 per cent. That is a salutary and sobering prospect for people who may be tempted to think, "The procedure's there, but I'll simply ignore it."
      This is a crucial point, fundamental to human rights. As things stand, someone can simply sling in an IT 1 and there are no procedures in the workplace. Should we move from that to a procedure in which people are locked out of the system altogether and prevented from seeking justice at an employment tribunal?
      We took that question extremely seriously, and business supports us here. For example, there is the CBI document—although perhaps some Conservative Members now consider the CBI to be the provisional wing of the DTI. The CBI said that it warmly welcomed proposals that would require employees to raise a problem with their employer. Most business people said that for them, the important thing was not to hear about a grievance in a courtroom but, that if someone still in their employment was worried, perhaps after having been passed over for promotion, they would talk to them first and air the grievance. That view has been reflected in new clause 6.
      The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), whose general support I appreciate—
      Mr. Hammond: The big tent.
      Alan Johnson: For a moment I thought that the hon. Gentleman was insulting me; I think that my suit fits rather well.
      The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare asked how relevant the step one letter was to the tribunal's decision on the substance of the case. The letter will be relevant to the tribunal's decision on whether the complaint is covered by the grievance that the employee raised, but not to the decision on the substance of the complaint.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked who would decide whether an exemption should apply. The tribunal will decide. I agree that that might require it to hold preliminary hearings, but we think that if we get the regulations right and the exceptions are clear, there will be less need for that to happen.
      The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked why the new clause did not require the employee to follow the three-step procedure. He made some curious points about why the employee gets three steps but the employer does not—
      Mr. Prisk: The other way round.
      Alan Johnson: Sorry, that is what I meant.
      Both sides have to follow those steps or any award will be liable to serious mitigation of between 10 and 50 per cent.
      This is not about one side or the other; it is about having a facility in the workplace to air grievances. Insisting that an employee had to follow the three steps before reaching a tribunal would cause a simple problem: we can imagine all the barriers that an unscrupulous employer would put up to stop the case going to a

      95
      tribunal. He could ensure that, even with the extra three months that we have provided under clause 32, it was time-expired.
      There is also a series of exemptions. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that certain situations need to be exempted, certainly from the full three-step procedure. We would have to have more exemptions, and there would be more preliminary hearings. The representatives of all sides of business whom we consulted shared the view that stage one of the grievance procedure was the important part.
      Mr. Prisk: The Minister said earlier that the Government were sympathetic to the idea that during the 28-day period following the provision of a letter, more employers and employees should have hearings and discussions—that they should, in his phrase, use that period. Will he give businesses guidance on that?
      4.45 pm
      Alan Johnson: By the time we have finished, businesses will have guidance on all aspects of the Bill coming out of their ears. The proposals are very important, especially for small businesses. There are 600,000 workplaces with no discipline or grievance procedures. Those employers are under no obligation to put such procedures in the written statement that goes to every employee because they employ fewer than 20 people. We have changed that requirement also, but the matter will need careful guidance, which I certainly undertake to supply.
      The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked how the admissibility regime would apply to a complaint by a redundant former employee. As I said when I moved the new clause, we do not envisage that the procedure will apply to former employees. For them, the relationship between employer and employee has been broken, so why should they write to a person who is no longer their employer? However, we believe that, with careful guidance, the step one procedure would help clarify and resolve constructive dismissal cases, without recourse to a full-blown tribunal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) also contributed to the debate. She was absolutely right to say that we must recognise that there could be circumstances in which it would be difficult for an employee to go even as far as writing a letter and waiting for the 28-day period.
      The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) supplied some very welcome flattery, and that is always appreciated. However, I do not agree with him, for the reasons that I set out earlier.
      I shall spend a second on amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It deals with the necessary powers contained in new clause 6 that would allow the Bill to be amended by secondary legislation. New clause 6(8) provides the power to extend the scope of the clause to non-employees. We will debate that matter again in connection with new clause 2, so I shall not spend much time on it now, other than to suggest that Opposition Members are making a considerable mountain out of a molehill.
      Proposed new subsection (8) provides the power to amend the admissibility criteria by order. We consider that to be prudent and sensible. We think that we have set
      96
      sound and reasonable criteria that will encourage dialogue without delaying access to tribunals, but experience may show that the admissibility criteria could helpfully be recast.
      For instance, it is conceivable that the 28-day period might be too short for proper dialogue to take place. We need to learn from experience about that, which is why we have given ourselves the power to deal with the matter in secondary legislation. In proposed new subsection (9), we have committed ourselves to consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service before making any changes in this area. Likewise, I would expect that we would consult widely before proposing any changes.
      I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will not press amendment (a), and that the House will endorse new clause 6 and the associated amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      REPORT ON IMPACT OF ACT
      Not later than one year from the date of coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report on the impact of the Act, including in particular an assessment of:

      (a) the total cost to employers of complying with the Act; and

      (b) the total cost to public funds of the Act; and

      (c) the distribution of costs and benefits arising from the Act between:

      (i) employers;

      (ii) employees of different descriptions; and

      (iii) others.

      and the Secretary of State shall, on each anniversary of the date of such publication, publish a revision of that report.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Hammond: 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 discuss the following: New clause 3—Assessment of costs to businesses—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the coming into effect of this Act, prepare and publish an assessment of the average administrative costs per employee to businesses of complying with each of the requirements of this Act
      (2) The Secretary of State shall, by Regulations, provide for the average administrative cost per employee as determined by the assessment under (1) above to be reimbursed to employers from public funds.'.
      New clause 4—Assessment of resources of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—
      '( ) Before making any order under section 55(2) of this Act relating to Parts 2 and 3, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish an assessment of the additional resources likely to be required by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service as a consequence of the coming into force of Parts 2 and 3.'.
      Mr. Hammond: New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to make regular assessments of the Act's ongoing impact on employers and public funds.

      97
      It also focuses attention on the distribution of costs and benefits between different groups, including between different groups of employees.
      We believe that many of the Bill's provisions are positive, and we welcome them. However, it is disingenuous to pretend—or imply—that the measures do not have costs. Businesses will face costs in terms of potential job creation, given that the Bill will reduce flexibility in the labour force. In addition, the Bill will benefit some members of a work force, inevitably at the expense of others. It is therefore right and appropriate to require the Secretary of State to focus attention on such matters by preparing and publishing regular reports on the effect and outcome of the Bill in real life.
      The Bill is wide ranging. The first part deals with paternity pay and leave and with adoption pay and leave, and extensions to rights of maternity leave. The second and third parts deal with tribunal reform and improving disciplinary and grievance procedures. The fourth part is a hotch-potch, dealing with everything else. I want to focus on the first part and clause 47, the new clause introduced by the Government in Committee that deals with the right to ask for flexible working terms for employees who have children below school age or, in certain specified circumstances, older children where a disability is involved. There is also a question in terms of cost impact relating to fixed-term work, but as we will debate that matter later, I shall avoid talking about it now.
      We generally support the family friendly approach of the first part of the Bill, but, in most cases, we should see the benefits delivered not as benefits to employers—although when labour markets are tight, they may help employers recruit and retain staff—or as benefits to individual employees, but primarily as benefits to society as a whole.
      It is unquestionable that anything we can do to strengthen families and support parents in the raising of children will have a significant benefit to society as a whole. We will have a better-educated and motivated work force, as well as a more stable social fabric. This is a social good from which we hope all of us will benefit in terms of less delinquency, better education, better-behaved children, less crime and less call on social services and social security to support damaged or collapsed families.
      We support that, but it is important to recognise that this is a benefit to society, and that society should be prepared to pay for it. In some cases, the Bill appears to impose the costs of this benefit to society on one sector of society, namely businesses. Businesses have a finite capacity to absorb additional burdens. If they are damaged by the imposition of too great a burden, that will have a significant effect on society as a whole, as business becomes uncompetitive, the economy is unable to grow, jobs are not created and wealth does not expand.
      In terms of the first part of the Bill, the direct costs will be met by society as a whole through the reimbursement by the Treasury of the costs of the direct payments for paternity and adoption leave and additional maternity leave, but the indirect costs on business will fall first on employers. Time off, sometimes for prolonged periods, will create problems, especially for small businesses. On Second Reading, we rehearsed the impact on a firm
      98
      employing three or four employees which finds that perhaps one or two of those employees at a time may be absent on statutory leave. Perhaps one of those employees will have a key skill that is essential to keeping the business going. The consequences could be significant if that employee were absent.
      In practice, I have always believed that, in a small firm, a deal will be done with such an employee. Effectively, the employer will end up bribing the employee not to exercise his statutory rights. That is probably a sub-optimal outcome, but one can envisage situations in which it will not be practical for a small business with three or four employees to continue operating for a prolonged period in the absence of a critical employee with a real skill.
      The real cost to a small business of losing a key employee is not, as the regulatory impact assessment suggests, the administrative costs of replacing him with someone else, or sharing out his work to others; it is the opportunities forgone.
      In the real world of small business, the order not pursued or the customer not served will represent the costs involved in lost output, lost profitability and, perhaps at the extreme margin, lost viability for that small business, so part I will involve intangible costs. Flexible working imposes further burdens, and the compliance requirements for smaller employers involved in ensuring that they do not infringe all the obligations placed on them under the Bill will impose yet more burdens on small business.
      Labour Members are fed up with hearing about burdens on business, but burdens on business have a real impact on all of us. The burdens that will be imposed under the Bill cannot be seen in isolation; they have to be seen in the context of a stream of regulations coming from the Government. Last year alone, the Government imposed more new regulations than in any previous year on record. Since 1997, business has had to come to grips with a raft of legislation that stems from the Government's signing up to the social chapter. Business has had to deal with the minimum wage and the working time directive, as well as the Government's determination to treat business as an extension of the welfare state apparatus and the working families tax credit, and there are more administrative burdens to come as business delivers more and more of the Government's in-work welfare programme.
      Business is reeling under that onslaught. The manufacturing sector in particular is under huge pressure, struggling with very tight economic conditions and facing an over-valued exchange rate, or perhaps one should say an under-valued euro, and swingeing tax increases, some of which—for example, the climate change levy—are targeted precisely at the sector, manufacturing industry, least able to cope with them. However, many of our competitors appear to have finally got the message; they are edging away from inflexibility in labour markets and moving back to embrace the benefits of more flexible labour markets. We are moving in the opposite direction, increasing the inflexibility in our labour markets in a way that threatens the competitiveness of British business. That needs to concern us all, not merely those who run and operate businesses.
      Rob Marris: I apologise to the House for the fact that, when I intervened earlier, I failed to say that I am member of the Transport and General Workers Union, that I

      99
      employ two people in my office and that my constituency Labour party received money from the TGWU before the election, as is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
      Will the hon. Gentleman give the House three examples of regulations that he would get rid of? I am sure that he will be able to do so, because I asked that very question on Second Reading, approximately two months ago, so he has had plenty of time to prepare an answer. Which three regulations introduced by the Labour Government that he thinks are burdensome on business and not socially necessary should be got rid of?
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's declaration of interest, which I did not quite catch, ranks as the verbal equivalent of small print, but I am sure that it will make interesting reading in Hansard tomorrow. I do not intend to get involved in going through all 4,600 regulations that the Government introduced last year, looking at their merits and demerits. The hon. Gentleman may be right to imply that I cannot recall all 4,600 of them off the top of my head.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not attempt to stretch his memory. Under new clause 1, we are discussing the Bill's impact, and he need not stray outside it.
      Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I am trying to make is that the burdens that will be imposed under the Bill are, of course, incremental. I do not suggest that this Bill alone will be the downfall of British industry. That would be absurd, but the Bill has to be seen in the context of business—in particular, the manufacturing sector—facing extraordinary difficulties because a raft of new burdens, new taxes, new regulations and new legislation has been imposed on it since 1997. We are staring down a pipeline that contains a further vast array of legislation and regulations—which largely originate in Brussels—and that will descend on British business in the not-too-distant future. That is the last thing that business needs at this point in time.
      5 pm
      Judy Mallaber: If the hon. Gentleman is able to talk only about the burdens imposed by this Bill, would he care to tell us which parts of the Bill, other than the provisions for union learning representatives, a proposal with which we know he disagrees, he would get rid of? Would he get rid of the paternity provisions and the adoption provisions? Will he let us know exactly which parts of the Bill he wishes to dispose of?
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady has perhaps missed the point of new clause 1. We must be honest with ourselves in recognising that all the good things in part I will impose costs on business. The next thing I was going to say was that I do not know exactly how damaging those costs will be to business. However, anybody who cares about our economy, growth, jobs and prosperity will want to ensure that we monitor carefully the impact of the legislation passed by the House. Regulatory impact assessments are prepared for Bills considered by the House. However, once we have passed them, off they go.
      New clause 1 suggests that the Secretary of State should attempt to measure annually what the cost impact of the measures in this Bill has been, and continues to be,
      100
      on business. That would enable us to have an informed debate about the costs and benefits, and also about the incidence of those costs and benefits. It is not a question only of the costs imposed on businesses, but of the costs imposed on other employees in the workplace.
      The Bill has a particular focus on dealing with employees who have young children. However, if we accept the premise that business has a limited capacity to absorb additional burdens and remain competitive, we are selecting one group of employees for favourable treatment against other groups of employees who believe that they have claims for similarly favourable treatment. Of course, parents of young children can make a strong argument for a right to ask for flexible working, and strong arguments can be made for granting paternity leave to help strengthen families at the time of a birth. However, other employees look after elderly relatives, and in many cases they spare the state a very expensive burden. We should also consider employees who look after adults with disabilities.
      Many employers attempt to be even-handed and flexible in dealing with their employees and their requests for flexible working or periods for time off. The fear must be that if one group of employees is given an absolute statutory right to ask for flexible working and to have that application considered by an employer who has to provide reasoned arguments if he will not grant the request, the natural reaction of employers will be to resist granting such extra statutory rights to other employees who are not entitled to them under the law. Therefore, a cost will be imposed on other employees in the workplace because of the real benefits being extended to a particular group of employees.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a benefit to business and industry if parents do not have to worry about having to get time off to look after young children? Productivity may increase. Companies that have invested in training and other matters and that allow women, in particular, to work flexibly could therefore retain them in the work force.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In many cases, particularly in areas where the labour market is tight, employers will take the kind of measures that we are discussing entirely for reasons of self-interest. I do not disagree with that for a moment. I do, however, take issue with the suggestion that we should get into the business of Governments using legislation to force employers to do things because they are good for them. In general, the Government's record in second-guessing the best way to run a business is not top quartile. If courses of action are available to a business which a rational manager might take for himself, that should be left to education rather than legislation to determine. Frankly, I would not trust the Government to impose the best management course of action in legislation.
      Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman talks about forcing employers to act. How does he square the re-authorisation of trade union membership with that?
      Mr. Hammond: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman.
      Mark Tami: I refer to check-off, which the previous Government forced employers to carry out every three years.
      Mr. Hammond rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I sense that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is being led out of the confines of the new clause. It might be best if he does not pursue that argument.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall plead ignorance in line with a sedentary comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) who also thinks that Chekhov is a playwright.
      It is not clear that the proposed measures will help UK business in the struggle to maintain productivity in the face of competition from overseas and the black economy, which we discussed in Committee. That touches on what the hon. Gentleman said. It is also worth remembering that every time we impose more legislative burdens on business, we widen the competitive advantage enjoyed by those who operate in the black economy and increase their ability to undercut responsible firms that abide by legislation, good or bad, that we introduce.
      Costs that are borne by business will have to be absorbed in their total labour cost. The cost to a business of treating one employee will inevitably reduce what should be available to other employees as wages. Those employees who do not benefit from the costs that are imposed on business will be cross-subsidising their colleagues in the workplace. I am not suggesting that it is necessarily wrong to introduce such measures, many of which we welcome, but it is wrong to pretend that they do not have a cost to business, the economy and fellow employees. We have introduced new clause 1 to focus on that cost and to find a mechanism for regularly reviewing and assessing its level.
      New clause 3 is supplementary to the purpose of new clause 1. It requires the Secretary of State to focus on the administrative cost to business of implementing the measures and to provide for reimbursement from public funds for that. Businesses are increasingly being asked to perform a role that was previously carried out by the state, especially in relation to administering the welfare state. The burdens are being imposed not just for the benefit of business itself but for the wider benefit of society, and they should be paid for by the public through taxation.
      The Minister and the Secretary of State were keen to emphasise on Second Reading that small businesses at least will be reimbursed for 100 per cent. of their direct costs in dealing with maternity pay, paternity pay, adoption pay and so on. That is right, although it does not extend to all businesses. However, there is also a significant indirect cost to businesses. We do not know the size of the cost, but the best guide that we have is in the regulatory impact assessment. New clause 3 would provide a mechanism for regularly assessing that cost and arranging for it to be picked up by the public purse.
      I understand that the Carter review of the cost to business of payroll compliance is under way. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House about the progress of that review, or perhaps it is a state secret that will be revealed by the Chancellor on Budget day. Many small businesses
      102
      place a great deal of hope on the outcome of the review. They hope it will lead to a recognition by the Government that as businesses are being asked to do more and more of the state's administrative work in relation to employees, their costs must be reimbursed. Businesses may well be an efficient means of delivering services because they are geared up to administering the work of the welfare state and delivering benefits to employees, but they must be reimbursed.
      New clause 4 deals with the resourcing of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The original scheme for tribunal reform considered by the Government was intended to generate revenue through a system of fees. Under pressure, the Government scrapped that system. Until this evening, I had thought that parts 2 and 3 were intended to reduce the work load of tribunals, so I was a little surprised to hear the Minister say he thought it likely—indeed, I think he said inevitable—that the work load would increase. That makes new clause 4 doubly important because it deals with the adequate resourcing of ACAS in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Bill.
      It is apparent to everyone that if the Bill is successful in reducing the burden on tribunals by diverting cases away, an additional burden may fall on ACAS. We probed the Minister on this matter but did not get a satisfactory answer. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a formal assessment of the resourcing requirements of ACAS before implementing parts 2 and 3. One of the many matters on which Members on both sides of the House have agreed during the proceedings on the Bill is that ACAS has a vital role, and it is essential that it is properly resourced to perform that role.
      In Committee, we merrily talked about conciliation officers being available for this, that and the other, but ACAS is already under great pressure. Whether the work load of tribunals increases or, with a greater number of cases being handled outside the tribunal system, substantially decreases, there is likely to be a significant increase in the demand for ACAS services. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us as to what his Department envisages for the future adequate resourcing of ACAS. How can we ensure that this will not be a half-baked measure and that parts 2 and 3 will not come into force without ACAS having been given sufficient resources to cope with the responsibility placed on it by the Bill?
      Brian Cotter: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) may be surprised to find that the tent to which he referred is bigger than he thought because the Liberal Democrats support new clause 1. We agree that there should be an annual assessment of the impact of the Bill, which makes several changes to employment law. Although employees will benefit from new employment rights such as flexible working provision, we must recognise that those new rights will have an impact on businesses, which will have to comply with new regulations.
      5.15 pm
      Small businesses in particular will be affected. Before Second Reading, I met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses who expressed the hope—perhaps it is a forlorn one, but we must take it on board—that small businesses would not be forced to take on the burden of too many more regulations and that any new regulations

      103
      that were introduced would be examined extremely carefully. That is why we Liberal Democrats strongly support the concept of examining regularly all sorts of regulations that affect business. In fact, we would support an annual horizontal impact assessment of all regulations. I cannot talk about that now as it would not be in order to do so in this debate, but it is something that should be done regularly.
      Mr. Prisk: For my benefit, will the hon. Gentleman clarify what an annual horizontal assessment is?
      Brian Cotter: It covers everything that confronts businesses—all sorts of regulations. However, I am not supposed to drift on to subjects that we are not debating; I chipped this one in quickly, but I had better move back to the clause. That regulations should be examined has long been a Liberal Democrat view—in fact, I think that my party was the first to make such a proposal.
      Mr. Lloyd: Given that the purpose of the new clauses is to examine the costs arising from the Bill, will the hon. Gentleman estimate the cost to Government and other sources of the exercise he describes?
      Brian Cotter: If the hon. Gentleman means the costs of the exercise of examining, I cannot estimate them. However, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they need not be excessive. We have regulatory impact assessments in respect of Bills, and even if the proposal in the new clause were to carry a cost, it would surely be repaid in terms of enabling us to see the legislation's impact and to address certain matters.
      Mr. David Watts: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) was trying to identify the rationale prevailing among the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. You seem to be arguing against an increase in bureaucracy, but at the same time you—
      Deputy Speaker: Order. I am arguing against nothing.
      Brian Cotter: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was well out of order. We are saying simply that we have long argued in favour of an annual assessment of the impact on the business community of all regulations and Bills.
      I do not support the logic of the arguments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in respect of costs. Will he explain what sort of costs he believes should be removed once the assessment is complete? There are many reasons to carry out an assessment—for example, to see how regulations are implemented, how much red tape is added and how many requirements fall on small businesses.
      We accept that costs will be associated with good regulations such as those covering maternity and paternity leave, which we strongly support. I do not decry those regulations, which are acceptable. Indeed, they are necessary to improve the workplace. However, when the Government implemented European regulations on part-time working, provisions that were two or three pages long in some countries ended up being 40 or 50 pages long in this country.
      Helen Jones: I question the feasibility of what the hon. Gentleman is supporting. New
      104
      clause 1 would require an assessment of the impact of the legislation on employees of different descriptions. How will we collect that information? How will that be done, unless every employee completes a form stating whether he or she has children or a disabled relative, for example?
      Brian Cotter: I support the argument that there must be assessment. Would the hon. Lady say that we should not assess the cost to business? Certainly not. Should we not assess how much red tape is unnecessary? I give credit to hon. Members on both sides of the House, because we are all considering how to examine Bills to determine what can be done away with and how we might say, "In practice, we do not need this rule, or that piece of paper." I am concerned that that process should be regularly undertaken.
      Whether we accept costs depends on the Bill. I accept costs that relate to social requirements, including maternity and paternity leave, but there is laxity in the way in which Bills are introduced. Many regulations can be introduced after a Bill is enacted, for example.
      Judy Mallaber: Taking up the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on the distribution of costs and benefits between employees of different descriptions, can the hon. Gentleman think of any way in which such assessments could be made without asking employers to be involved in collecting that information? Such involvement would clearly place another burden on them.
      Brian Cotter: I have always supported the principle of examining Bills. Sampling procedures can be carried out to assess impacts. There are different ways of assessing different things. Specific details will turn on particular Bills and particular regulations. Are we calling into question impact assessments altogether? They must be carried out before a Bill is in place. One of my long-standing criticisms, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, is that such assessments have not been carried out adequately. We are arguing that the assessments should be undertaken adequately, regularly and on a continuing basis.
      Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is alarming that Labour Members appear to be reluctant to accept an assessment of costs? It is a matter not of ruling out things because of costs, but of wanting to know what the costs are, so that we can behave rationally and understand what we are doing. It is appalling to think that we should work while blind.
      Brian Cotter: I agree, although having said that there is a broad tent, I do not incorporate into that everything for which the hon. Gentleman stands, such as reluctance to introduce a minimum wage. However, I am not supposed to refer to that, so I had better press on.
      I think that I have sufficiently addressed the issue. I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to be more specific about the costs that concern him. What are the costs that he thinks could be cut? I accept the principle of assessing costs but I would like more detail, either now or later.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene again. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said

      105
      earlier, we want to assess the costs not only of the things that we think are bad, but of those that we think are good. We want to assess all costs and benefits and their incidence so that we can make informed decisions. I cannot tell him whether the Bill contains proposals involving costs that are too great for the benefits that they will deliver unless and until there is assessment, which will allow proper and rational decisions to be made.
      Brian Cotter: I think that I shall leave it at that for fear of being drawn into any suggestion that Liberal Democrats do not support maternity and paternity leave and other welcome and worthwhile proposals. We must regularly examine the impact of regulations and Bills on business. I am sure that the Minister will find it difficult to argue against that. I look forward to what he and other colleagues have to say.
      Rob Marris: I shall principally address new clause 3. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) talked about flexibility in the labour market which, of course, we need. He also mentioned manufacturing, which is particularly important to me as a Member representing a west midlands constituency. He talked about benefits to society being imposed on business by some of the Bill's provisions. New clause 3, which he tabled, deals with working out average costs and reimbursing them to employers; that is contrary to my view of the way in which small business operates and, I suspect, to his views. The cost for small businesses of complying with administrative requirements is often higher than it is for bigger businesses yet, in the new clause, the hon. Gentleman simply wants an average cost to be reimbursed.
      The hon. Gentleman assumes—I do not—that there is a cost; many of the Bill's provisions will benefit business. Thanks to the Labour Government, employment has gone up a great deal, and there are scarcities in the labour market. That can benefit business, as it means that it will not lose part of its trained work force. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that, as a consequence of the new clause, we go into negative accounting? If there is a demonstrable benefit from the Bill's provisions—my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) adverted to it—should business reimburse the state for having introduced them? I suspect that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge does not believe that it should.
      Training is increasingly offered by the state, which is not to say that many businesses do not do a lot of training. In most cases, the Government do not seek to charge business directly for undergoing that training. In such things, there are trade-offs in any society; the new clause is therefore misconceived.
      Mr. Hammond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Carter review to which I referred earlier? Does he anticipate a gesture in response to that review, as proposed by the new clause? The state should recognise that in some cases significant costs previously borne by the state are transferred to business through business administration, particularly of in-work welfare schemes.
      Rob Marris: I am not about to prejudge the outcome of the Carter review. We must consider the practicalities
      106
      of the way in which legislation operates, as I know the hon. Gentleman wishes to do. He talked about benefits being imposed on business; however, the flavour of his remarks was that, for example, he and his colleagues might wish to get rid of a swathe of health and safety legislation, which is massively beneficial to business and those who work in business. I hope that he will give an assurance that he and his party do not intend to do so. No doubt he will address that issue when he sums up.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned favourable treatment for parents when he discussed flexible working. I am delighted that there is favourable treatment for parents; I say so as someone who, sadly, is not a parent, despite my best endeavours and those of my partner. Although I am not a parent, the next generation will look after me in my old age, assuming that I have the privilege of reaching an old age. I hope that my nephews and nieces are prepared to look after me as carers, if it comes to that. I salute the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that carers should be included in flexible working. I only wish that he had tabled an amendment to that effect; we could have debated it and heard the Minister's views.
      Finally, on new clause 4. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that sufficient resources will be available to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to do any extra work that may be required under the Bill. I am not saying that the Bill will require extra work, but if it does, I hope that the Minister can give us that assurance.
      Mr. Mark Field: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter). I suspect that the tent will not be big enough to keep us all happy, but I hope that our debate will continue in an easy-going manner.
      I want to address in particular new clause 1, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) gave such a skilful introduction.
      5.30 pm
      I well understand what was said in relation to part 1. Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I have paid close attention to the Bill, which is clearly important. Behind it is a practical analysis of the modern world of work, and I fully appreciate that the family needs and responsibilities, especially of young employees, must be catered for. I should like to think, though, that many sensible and responsible employers have catered for them on a voluntary basis, without the need for legislative constraint. I recognise that the Minister will no doubt point out that some employers do not play the game and make life difficult for employees who find themselves in dire straits, for whatever reason.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge hit the nail on the head. There is a great cost not just to businesses, but to fellow employees arising from many of the new rights that have been put in place. It is highly unfair, particularly in a tight employment

      107
      market and in a small business context, that people who by choice are not parents, for example, find an increasing burden placed on their shoulders.
      Helen Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten me? In new clause 1(c)(iii), who are the "others", who are neither employers nor employees? How would he carry out an assessment of the costs and benefits of the Bill to them?
      Mr. Field: There are external costs that will not be borne directly by either employers or employees, but which may be borne by a range of bodies. For example, to promote the Act it is likely that there will be a large amount of advertising via various Government Departments, which have been known to extol the virtues of their own legislation. That expense would be covered by sub-paragraph (iii).
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) does not seem satisfied with my hon. Friend's answer. The most obvious "others", neither employees nor employers, are surely the Government—the public purse.
      Mr. Field: I hoped that that was the point that I was making. I thank my hon. Friend.
      Earlier, the Minister proudly announced the support of the CBI. Central to the proposal set out in the new clause is the protection of small businesses. The CBI has supported in principle a number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the past five years. I hasten to add that the CBI was also supportive of much legislation passed over the previous 18 years. One of the reasons for that support is that larger businesses are well catered for. They have the infrastructure in place. They have large human resources or personnel departments.
      That luxury is not available to many small and medium-sized enterprises. With 10 or 15 employees, they will often not have a dedicated HR department or a payroll department. That goes to the heart of the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Frisk) has made his own—the Carter report and the incumbent expenses on the payroll that have been brought into play by recent legislation, rules and regulations. That is a great concern to many small businesses. If the Bill is enacted, there should be an early opportunity for a full assessment of the cost to small business resulting from the new rules and regulations.
      My chief concern is that many of the proposals will provide a strong disincentive for smaller employers to increase their work force. That is especially true of small, vibrant organisations which, by the nature of their business, employ a lot of young employees. With 10 employees, say, all of whom are in their 20s or early 30s, there is a risk that two or three will be on paternity or maternity leave at any one time. The prospect of having to keep those jobs open for any length of time, especially when the economy may start to go through a more difficult phase, may result in such businesses deciding that they should not grow any larger. If rules and regulations provide a disincentive to businesses to employ more than, say, 12, 15 or 20 employees, those businesses may have to set up small subsidiaries that operated under a different umbrella in order to get round the rules. That would be an unhealthy state of affairs, but the provisions in the new clauses could alert us to this at an early stage.
      108
      In many of our constituencies, whether they be the heart of the City of London, which I represent, or some of those represented by Labour Members, the days of large-scale employers being able to offer many thousands of jobs are gone. The small and medium-sized enterprise sector is the real vehicle for employment growth in the years ahead.
      Mr. George Osborne: It is welcome to have a chance to debate the important new clauses moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). They go to the heart of the Bill as regards the costs and benefits that it will impose on our society and our economy.
      As hon. Members who served on the Committee will know, many parts of the Bill are uncontroversial. Widespread support was given to the extension of maternity rights, the creation of new paternity rights and, especially, the creation of new rights for adoptive parents. Conservative Members found themselves in the refreshing position of arguing for more rights for adoptive parents, which is a good sign. However, the Government must accept that those rights are not introduced without costs to society and to business. Indeed, the Government's regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that substantial costs are involved. Maternity leave will cost taxpayers £305 million and paternity leave and paternity pay will cost employers £64 million and taxpayers £63 million.
      New clause 3 gives us the opportunity to debate where those costs should fall. Should they fall on employers, on employees or on society as a whole? If we as a society want stronger families and believe that it is right for parents to take time off to help to bring up their children, it is important that we give them a chance to do so. We should provide financial support, if necessary, or the chance to take a career break before returning to work. It is welcome that in recent years hon. Members of all parties have come to accept that.
      Other parts of the Bill received less general support in Committee. Hon. Members have mentioned union learning representatives and the requirement on employers to give them paid leave. The Government predict a massive increase in the number of union learning representatives, from 3,000 at present to 22,387 in eight years' time—I am not sure how they managed to be so precise in predicting that figure. Many of those will be in the public sector. An illuminating fact that was mentioned in Committee was that the Department for Education and Skills has no union learning representatives.
      The cost of the union learning representatives clauses will be considerable. The cost to employers of the clauses on fixed-term work could amount to £136 million. The Government estimate in the regulatory impact assessment that the huge new right—the duty to consider flexible working—will cost employers £286 million, possibly more. As I think that the Minister would freely admit, we are not sure whether that figure is remotely accurate, because the provision opens up a whole new area.
      Judy Mallaber: The hon. Gentleman may be interested in my previous experience as an employer in a small organisation. By helping to rearrange someone's working hours, I saved the money that would have been spent on advertising to recruit a highly skilled employee and on training that person. Employers can cut costs in that way.
      Mr. Osborne: I am happy to accept that flexible and part-time working, and helping employees to spend time

      109
      with their families, often help a company by improving relationships in the work force, and often ensure that someone who would otherwise leave a company for good comes back to work. We are flying blind, however, so far as the Bill is concerned. We do not know what impact it will have on society and on businesses. New clause 1 will at least give us a route map.
      Mr. Simmonds rose—
      Mr. Hammond rose—
      Mr. Osborne: I shall give way first to my Back-Bench colleague.
      Mr. Simmonds: Does my hon. Friend accept that we must consider not just the direct impact of the Bill but the administration that will ensue, particularly in small businesses that do not have personnel departments? That will be the real impact on the running of the business.
      Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend is right; real indirect costs arise from places being left vacant that are difficult to fill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wish to pursue his intervention?
      Mr. Hammond: Is my hon. Friend surprised that, notwithstanding the lessons of history, hon. Members on the other side still apparently believe in the power of the statute to tell businesses what they should do in their own best interests? Does he not find that quite startling?
      Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend is right: that is indeed striking. One of the things that I would have expected the Labour party to learn from the supply-side reforms of the 1980s is that we cannot continue piling costs and legislation on businesses without having an effect on their competitiveness. When economists and historians look back on this period of history, they will judge those supply-side reforms to have laid the foundation for the strong economic growth that we have enjoyed for the last 10 years.
      There is no real evidence of what impact the Bill will have on businesses and on society. Anyone who has read the regulatory impact assessment will know that it uses fantasy figures to try to calculate the possible costs and benefits to employers, which are almost impossible to calculate in advance. It would surely be much more sensible to ask businesses what the costs were likely to be. It has been suggested that that would represent an extra cost to businesses, but in my experience, small employers are only too happy to tell me what the costs of Government regulations have been for them. They have always been very happy to volunteer that information.
      It clearly makes sense that we should have some idea of the cost of the employment legislation that we introduce.
      Rob Marris rose—
      Mrs. Betty Williams rose—
      Mr. Osborne: I shall give way to my good friend, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris).
      Rob Marris: I am obliged. I think that I understood the hon. Gentleman to concede that, in certain circumstances,
      110
      businesses could save money through the measures in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) gave an example earlier in relation to advertisements and so on. Will the hon. Gentleman also concede that, if the new clause were added to the Bill and the ensuing investigations showed that a business was, overall, saving money through the measures, that money should be reimbursed to the Government? That seems to be the logic of what he is proposing.
      Mr. Osborne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Businesses are already paying through the nose to the Government because of the huge increases in business taxation that have been piled on over the last four years. Frankly, we cannot ask them to pay any more.
      Mr. Prisk: I would like to review new clauses 1, 3 and 4 in the style of the Miss World contest, by taking them in reverse order.
      I want to begin by looking at new clause 4. At the beginning of Second Reading and in subsequent claims and comments by the Secretary of State and the Minister, we heard proud—and, I think, genuine—claims about the potential for the Bill to improve the situation in the workplace. In a letter to all colleagues in the House, the Minister stated:
      "The Bill will improve the way disputes are managed in the workplace."
      He went on to say that
      "the Bill introduces a simple internal procedure and encourages both parties to use it."
      He also said:
      "The Government is committed to … a modern and user-friendly public service, and well-informed users."
      Those are all good and noble intentions that underpin the purpose of the Bill. The difficulty is that, no matter how hard I looked through the Bill, the explanatory notes and the subsequent regulatory impact assessment, I found nothing that specifically identified the resources required to achieve the aims set out in the Bill's preamble and by the Minister during his promotion of it.
      5.45 pm
      New clause 4 would enable an accurate assessment of the costs to ACAS, and thereby allow it to plan. That is particularly important in the light of the Minister's interesting comment that he foresees that the number of cases coming before employment tribunals will probably rise in years to come, despite many earlier statements to the contrary by him and his colleagues. It is right to bring that principle of assessment to the heart of a vital part of the Bill.
      Although I do not want to overdo the cross-party consensus, I strongly support the request from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that the Minister make it clear that resources will be forthcoming. New clause 4 would allow him to ensure that those resources are accurately identified and brought forward appropriately.
      If I may, I shall discuss new clauses 1 and 3. On publication, the Bill was accompanied by an initial estimate of costs and benefits. I have in front of me the explanatory notes—all Members will doubtless have read them from cover to cover—which set out how the costs

      111
      and benefits will affect employers, the individuals concerned and taxpayers. I wish to focus on the costs to employers. In keeping with the initial regulatory impact assessment, the explanatory notes refer to a one-off cost to employers of £97 million, and an annual run-on cost of a further £272 million. On the basis of the initial estimates, we can therefore envisage a cost of £369 million in the first year and £272 million in the years following.
      There is a flaw, however. Although I do not intend to be prejudicial about its content, this is not a complete Bill. It is an enabling Bill that is merely a framework. Throughout our deliberations in Committee, the Minister and his hon. Friends told us that the Bill will lead to many regulations, so the danger is that to rely on the initial regulatory impact assessment is to consider an incomplete Bill. To do so is like paying merely for the first and main courses in a restaurant without taking into account the pudding and the wine bill.
      The difficulty is that regulations have not been tabled, so they cannot be costed. The £272 million is the beginning—the minimum. The danger is that, when those regulations are enacted, the House will be unable to consider and itemise the costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) rightly said, those costs could well be substantial. That is my concern.
      On the right to request flexible working, the Government produced in Committee, rather belatedly, a subsequent regulatory impact assessment, albeit that the Minister was open enough to point out that it is a partial assessment. I realise that members of the Standing Committee are probably worried that my enthusiasm for reading regulatory impact assessments might not be good for my long-term health, but I pursued the matter and went through the assessment in great detail.
      It became apparent that the new clause on flexible working, which was introduced at the end of the Committee's deliberations, adds £38 million in the first year and a further £286 million every year thereafter. As the mathematicians present will understand, that is not merely a small increase in the original bill of £272 million. The increase resulting from introducing one extra clause more than doubles the original cost. The annual cost of this Bill was initially £272 million. It has now risen to £558 million—and, as I say, I fear that that is only the price of the dessert. Perhaps we have not yet considered the price of the wine and the petits fours.
      My first reason for supporting new clause 1 is the need for a comprehensive assessment of all the costs. My second is that it rightly seeks to distinguish between different employers, and between different burdens borne by employers. Because the Secretary of State has reserved a number of powers, we do not yet know how they will impact on the various players. We therefore need an assessment that is comprehensive, and also distinguishes between different types of employer.
      The creation of new rights, and the cost of administering them, will always pose fewer difficulties for larger employers. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, a large company with a human resources or personnel department will be able to deal with such matters. However, the Bill will impose a huge new set of burdens on small employers—not least the increased time that will have to be spent on ensuring that the business, perhaps a family firm, is sticking to the letter of the law.
      112
      To be fair, I must add that the Government have acknowledged in the explanatory notes and the regulatory impact assessment that the Bill will place a disproportionate burden on small employers. Notwithstanding Labour scepticism, I think that the burden will be experienced in two ways. First, there is the problem of time. The Bill contains 53 clauses and seven schedules, and heaven knows how many amendments will be made today. Small businesses will have to try to understand the rules—for instance, those governing the three-step process of dispute resolution. It will take time to understand, implement and verify each of those steps.
      Many small firms are already struggling with the volume of paperwork with which they must deal. I am told by a number of small business organisations that the average small family firm must now spend up to 31 hours a month, the equivalent of four working days, simply complying with existing regulations. That is an appalling statistic, and I fear that the Bill will impose further burdens of time and pressure.
      The second problem is this. While a company employing 100 or 200 people will be able to cover absences for statutory maternity or paternity leave if four or five people have rights to such leave, the burden will clearly be much greater for a small family business employing only four or five people when two people wish to exercise their rights. Although elements of the Bill acknowledge the existence of the problem in financial terms, I am not sure that it has been fully acknowledged.
      The Bill tries to be family friendly; but—I think I made this point on Second Reading—what about the father or mother who must spend time in the evenings and at weekends dealing with paperwork for the family business, rather than spending it with the family itself? That is one of the potential conflicts at the heart of the Bill. It is friendly to some families, but not to all.
      Rob Marris: Of course running a small business is hard. I have helped to do so in my time, as the hon. Gentleman may have. Given that the burden he has just mentioned may fall disproportionately on small business, however, why does he apparently support new clause 3, which refers to an average reimbursement?
      Mr. Prisk: New clause 3 is intended to provide for a clear assessment of the costs and benefits for all concerned. Without that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) pointed out, we shall be flying blind. New clause 3 seeks to ensure that we know the costs, and indeed the potential benefits, so that we can be fair to all parties. New clauses 1 and 3 attempt to identify a problem accurately; they also reinforce the spirit of National Audit Office guidance to Ministers on how regulatory impact assessments should be compiled. The Minister may wish to consider that important aspect.
      All that the three new clauses aim to do is provide an informed assessment of the Bill's impact on those whom it will affect. Although I have grave reservations about the costs to family businesses and other small firms, I think that new clause 1 will allow us to have an informed and intelligent debate.
      Mr. Simmonds: I too support the new clauses. The Bill contains much that is good, particularly the clauses allowing parents flexible working hours when that is

      113
      appropriate and providing for paternity and extended maternity leave. Having run a small business, however, I believe that they will place additional burdens on such businesses.
      I think we all accept that allowing more rights and greater flexibility in the workplace, where appropriate, is sensible and forward-looking. As my hon. Friends have said, however, the Government must understand that there is a cost to businesses. I am particularly concerned with the cost to small businesses. The provision of dispute resolution and grievance procedures are most likely to have an impact, mostly because they are less likely to have existing procedures from which to develop. According to the regulatory impact study, the total recurring cost—I am not talking about one-off costs—will be up to £610 million.
      That extra money must come from somewhere. In the case of small businesses in particular, it can be found in only three ways. It may come from profits, which means that there is less money to reinvest in the business, thus enabling it to grow and making future jobs possible. It may come from a cut in employment. Some businesses living on the margin will not be able to cope with the additional regulatory burden, or with the extra administration and costs. Those businesses will disappear.
      Mr. Mark Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) made a good point. There will now be two sorts of employee, those who will benefit and those who are employers in small businesses. The latter will bear a double burden: they may have family commitments, while incurring large costs in terms of both money and time that will not even be included in the £610 million mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds).
      6 pm
      Mr. Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. There is a paradox here in that one of the Bill's underlying themes is to create more family friendly policies so that more time can be spent with children. Yet there may be a direct impact, with those who own and run small businesses being able to spend less time with their families because of filling in forms and dealing with the administration and additional regulatory burdens imposed by the Bill.
      It is my view that £610 million is an underestimate. The extension of union learning representatives will have a significant impact on small and large businesses. Furthermore, enormous additional costs could be imposed under the regulations. New clauses 1 and 3 should be considered carefully, otherwise we will have no idea of the costs for businesses.
      It would be strange if the Department of Trade and Industry carried out no assessments and had no monitoring structures to ensure that these provisions did not have a detrimental impact on businesses, small and large. I hope that when he responds, the Minister will say that monitoring structures will be put in place. If not, how on earth will the Minister and his colleagues be able to judge whether the legislation has been a success? The only way in which the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell whether the Bill has been a success is if fewer cases go
      114
      to employment tribunals, and he has already said that that will not be the case. He must consider the new clauses carefully, as they will ensure the Bill's success.
      Many small businesses struggle to survive. It is only by the hard work and dedication of those who run them that they can thrive in a highly competitive economic situation. The new weight of red tape to be placed on employers needs to be assessed. It is my view, as I stated in Committee, that small businesses with fewer than a certain number of employees should primarily be exempt from certain aspects of the Bill. It is my belief that certain measures will be so detrimental to small businesses and their ability to create employment, grow and drive the economy forward that the voluntary arrangements that are in place and have been thriving in the past should be allowed to continue.
      My view is supported by the Forum of Private Business, which says:
      "The Bill establishes formal provision—whereas small businesses operate more effectively under informal conditions. Where regulatory compliance becomes mandatory and recourse is through legal process, then advocacy requires the production of formal evidence …or in a word, bureaucracy."
      It is not unreasonable for new clauses 1 and 3 to require the Government to report back to the House with a detailed assessment of the Bill's impact. Further burdens are already borne by business, such as the processing of loans and administration of benefits. Those are matters for which the Government are responsible. Fulfilling those tasks takes up valuable management time and distracts from the focus of what management or owners are supposed to do in running small and medium-sized businesses. I hope that that work will be clarified in the Carter review and that it will give recognition to those who run small businesses.

      The burden of regulation on business has greatly increased under this Government. The one theme that runs through the remarks of all the business men and women I meet is that we must reduce red tape. I plead with the Minister: if the Bill goes through, a line must be drawn in the sand. There must be no more additional regulations and burdens placed on businesses, particularly small businesses, which will lead to a further reduction in competitiveness.
      Alan Johnson: The new clauses would impose a regime of evaluation of the measures in the Bill that is both costly and unnecessary. New clause 1 requires an annual report of the impact of these measures. New clause 3 requires an assessment of the average cost to business per employee of administering each measure in the Bill and proposes that those costs be reimbursed from the public purse. New clause 4 seeks an assessment of the additional resources likely to be required by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service before the measures in parts 2 and 3 of the Bill come into force.
      Let me make it clear that I entirely agree about the importance of effective evaluation policy. We have already provided details of our proposals—they are included in the regulatory impact assessment—to evaluate the impact of the separate provisions in the Bill. That assessment, as hon. Members are aware, is available in the Library. It makes it clear that individual policies will be evaluated effectively. For example, we have accepted the recommendation of Professor Sir George Bain's work and the parents taskforce. That taskforce had

      115
      representation the CBI, and the splendid Simon Topham, a small business man, and other small business representatives contributed to the nine unanimous recommendations. One recommendation is about taking a baseline survey on current practice on flexible working later this year, with a repeat study, three years later, to measure the effect of the legislation.
      We have taken account of the possible costs to ACAS arising from the implementation of parts 2 and 3 of the Bill and we have assessed the impact on employers of administering the maternity and paternity pay policies.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister said that the proposals in the new clauses were costly and then went on to say that he intends to carry out precisely the evaluations that we propose. How are his evaluations not costly while the ones proposed in the new clauses would be?
      Alan Johnson: I will be coming to that.
      On flexible working, the specific recommendation from the Bain taskforce was that in such a brave new world, as Conservative Members have said, there was no precedent and that, as we had scant information, we should take measures now because the provisions to set a proper baseline against which to evaluate those procedures will not apply until 2003. Accepting a recommendation to conduct such surveys does not mean that we will accept every proposal to conduct surveys and reconsider costs, as proposed in the new clauses.
      I shall say more about ACAS in a moment. Evaluation is important, but it cannot be produced out of a hat. Immediate impact assessment is often of limited value, as I admitted in Committee. It takes time for evidence to emerge, and it is not always possible to separate the effects of legislation from other changes taking place in individual businesses.
      Conservative Members must decide which way they want to play this. On the one hand, there is a kind of "Letwinisation" that says that these measures are part of a good society and that people should have adoption and paternity leave. On the other hand, there is the old and rather tired view. I pay tribute, however, to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who accepted that there were benefits to society but put the fascinating and quite new argument that society should pay for them. They cannot have it both ways.
      The Bill introduces measures that are long overdue. It is ludicrous that adoptive parents have received no help in the past. It is ludicrous that, despite having for 20 years been part of a World Health Organisation drive to encourage mothers to breast feed their children up to six months, we have done nothing about it. It is ludicrous that so many workplaces and workers have no recourse to internal procedures for resolving disputes and grievances.
      These matters must be tackled. Each new clause refers to the cost of a measure for employers and the public purse, but none of them refers to the benefits. I am pleased that some of my hon. Friends talked about the benefits. The family friendly policies, the improved dispute resolution, the modernisation of the tribunal system and the other policies in the Bill are designed to create modern productive workplaces that provide the partnership and flexibility that both employers and employees seek to strengthen business competitiveness.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister said that none of the new clauses referred to the benefits, but that is not the
      116
      case. New clause 1 specifically asks for an assessment of the distribution of both the costs and the benefits of the Bill.
      Alan Johnson: I stand corrected on new clause 1, but the Conservatives' whole approach to the debate, including—with a few honourable exceptions—practically all their contributions, has concentrated on the costs rather than the benefits.
      It is true that many of the substantial benefits that will arise for employers are difficult to quantify in financial terms. None the less, it would be wrong to discount them. We do not want to fall into the trap that Oscar Wilde once described, of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
      Mr. Prisk: One of the key points that we have tried to get across to the Minister is why we feel that there should be a continuing assessment. The reasons are that this is an enabling Bill, not a static item that can be costed instantly, and because things will change and the Secretary of State will have powers to add new elements. That argument lies behind our case, and I do not think that the Minister has tackled it.
      Alan Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman saw me smile just then, I should let him know that I was not smiling at what he was saying; it is just that I could have done without the pager message saying, "Vote on new clause expected soon". I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment; there is a special little bit of my speech dedicated to him.
      There are benefits that can be quantified. Good employment relations lead to improved productivity, better retention of employees and reduced recruitment costs. The average cost of filling a vacancy in 2001 was nearly £4,000—up over 11 per cent. on the previous year—and it is often small firms that find it most damaging to lose valuable staff. If only 10 per cent. of the women who currently do not return to work after maternity leave decided to return as a result of the improvements in maternity rights, employers could save up to £39 million each year in recruitment costs alone.
      We are also taking the pain out of administering the new benefits by enabling employers to claim back in advance the moneys that they are paying out. Small firms will get back more than 100 per cent. of their payments. We are almost doubling the number of small employers who qualify for that benefit, and that is an important step forward.
      Like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may remember that once, all employers received 100 per cent. reimbursement of statutory maternity pay, so you, like me, might have wondered where that went, and why they now get only 92 per cent. Lo and behold, it was the Conservative Government in 1994, who reduced the percentage.
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Never.
      Alan Johnson: Yes, that comes under the category of "Strange but True"—an item that I used to read every week in The Eagle. It was the party that is now telling us that we have to pay more attention to business, and not load burdens onto it, that cut the reimbursement of statutory maternity pay from 100 per cent. to 92 per cent.

      117
      just eight years ago. To coin a phrase, this is a win, win, win scenario. Employers, working people and the economy all gain.
      The new statutory procedures for dispute resolution recognise the needs of businesses, both small and large. Avoiding costly, stressful and time-consuming litigation will benefit employers, employees and the employment tribunal system. The benefits should become apparent in the second year after the introduction of the procedures, producing an annual saving for businesses of between £60 million and £80 million.
      What I said earlier about the number of cases is an honest assessment of how things will look in four or five years' time. The number of cases may have tripled—incidentally, they doubled before any new rights were introduced. That must mean that we have a healthier society in which people are more aware of their rights and less afraid to use them. They are more assertive, and they have more rights to be aware of; I do not apologise for that. I think that there is a consensus, even among Conservative Members, that age discrimination and so on should be tackled, so it would be strange if we did not envisage that at some stage the number of cases would pick up. Current estimates are based on the current number of cases, and we are expecting to make savings. When the new jurisdictions are introduced, having a procedure in the workplace will help to resolve the issues without a tribunal.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister is in danger of having his last remarks misinterpreted. He appeared to suggest that, as people become more aware of their rights, he welcomes the fact that they are taking more litigious action in support of them. Is he saying that a move towards a more litigious society is to be welcomed?
      Alan Johnson: Not at all. I am suggesting that as so many workers now have no opportunity to exercise those rights so that problems can be resolved in the workplace, it must be right for us to introduce the changes in the Bill.
      6.15 pm
      I do not accept that employers should have the right to recover their average costs of complying with each of the requirements of the Bill from the public purse, any more than they should have the right to recover their costs in administering PAYE, national insurance, tax credits or VAT. The best employers already bear many of those costs, because they already recognise the value of providing their employees with those rights.
      We understand the pressures that new regulation puts on business. We have, rightly, spent much time in Committee discussing the proposals, and we are committed to sympathetic implementation of the Bill and to ensuring that employers and employees have enough time to understand and plan for the changes. We will provide clear, accessible, user-friendly guidance to all, particularly small businesses. The Inland Revenue has also expanded the range of help available through business support teams, which now provide one-to-one on-site assistance to employers on every aspect of their obligations in respect of Inland Revenue business.
      118
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that some employees would gain from the Bill and some would not. He mentioned flexible working, and I want to address that point again, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) on that. It is good of him to join us tonight. He is taking a break from his endeavours to become a father, so I hope that he can hang around until the end of the debate.
      My hon. Friend was right to point out that we have a two-pronged approach. There is regulation; we are introducing the measures for parents of children under six because we do not want to miss out a generation. Best practice often emerges from small businesses, which have some cracking arrangements for flexible working, which help to recruit and retain staff. We are spreading that best practice for parents and small children.
      As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge recognised, we all have a stake in helping to ensure that children are raised properly. We cannot wait a generation. There is also the work-life balance campaign. We have an enormous interest in spreading best practice for flexible working even when it is unrelated to parenthood. It might be that people have other caring responsibilities, or simply want to pursue a hobby. This is a two-pronged attack.
      I have heard the backlash argument from several quarters, although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge did not put it so—[Interruption.] That is true; he did not put it at all—but that does not stop me from replying to the point, in case he does put it.
      The backlash argument diminishes and insults working people, who in the wide consultation that we conducted in workplaces never once raised that idea. Of course, they understood the need for mothers and fathers to spend more time with their small children, and yes, many of them said that they would like the same kind of flexible arrangements for themselves, but they did not say it out of resentment.
      Mr. Hammond: I shall put that argument now, in response to the Minister. Just for the record, does he acknowledge that when it is ruled either by the courts or through new statutory provisions that, for example, a policewoman with a small child does not have to work a night shift, by definition her colleagues who are not mothers of small children will have to work more undesirable night shifts? Is that not a logical and inevitable consequence?
      Alan Johnson: That is a depressing approach to the clause. The answer to the question is no, not at all. In the vast majority of cases, such problems are resolved when one employee suggests that a change in shifts would be beneficial, and then finds a colleague willing to change out of a rigid shift system.
      Mr. Hammond indicated dissent
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it requires only a little thought and imagination to break away from the rigid systems that developed when women were largely absent from the workplace because only men had full-time jobs. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that regard.

      119
      I am conscious that I need to make some progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West also referred to ACAS, and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right in new clause 4, to draw attention to that body's importance in matters covered by parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. However, in seeking an assessment of additional resources likely to be required by ACAS when the measures in this Bill are implemented, the hon. Gentleman is once again concentrating on costs and ignoring benefits. It is clear from the responses received from all parties to the "Routes to Resolution" consultation paper that the services of ACAS are highly regarded. That body will play a key role in ensuring that businesses, especially small businesses, have the advice and guidance that they need.
      We fully support that role. During the financial period 1998–99 to 2000–01, funding for ACAS has increased from £26.2 million to £32.4 million, a rise of 23 per cent. As I said earlier, the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill already refers to the possible costs to, and efficiency gains for, ACAS arising from the implementation of parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. However, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will be aware that the employment tribunals system taskforce, set up by my Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department and headed by Janet Gaymer, is considering the resources of the employment tribunal system as a whole. The operational impact on both ACAS and the ETS of the policies included in parts 2 and 3 will be part of that consideration. The taskforce reports in spring this year, and we shall take account of all its recommendations when considering the funding needs of ACAS.
      As I said earlier, however, there are benefits as well as costs to consider. The dispute-resolution measures in the Bill are designed to encourage parties to resolve their problems in the workplace. That should reduce the number of cases resorting to litigation and using ACAS services. Secondly, clause 24 introduces a fixed conciliation period. That will free up conciliators' time to deal with claims in which both parties are engaged in the conciliation process, and will allow ACAS to concentrate on the cases where its expertise is needed most.
      Overall, the policies in the Bill strike a balance between rights and responsibilities in the workplace. I was shocked and surprised by what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) said. People are rushing in and out of my tent at great speed, but the hon. Gentleman was guilty of trying to have it both ways. Liberal Democrat Members seem to lurch from one position to another, depending on whether they are trying to win seats in the north or the south-west. We well remember that they opposed the windfall levy that supported the new deal, and that they supported a regional minimum wage. Now, almost alone, they propose that the national rate for the minimum wage should be available for people aged 16. That is an incredible change from their original policy. I am therefore disappointed with the hon. Gentleman, who needs to rethink his approach to the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked whether I could say anything about the Carter committee, or whether it was a state secret. The Small Business Service has conducted a series of focus groups to obtain views about the recommendations made by Patrick Carter in his payroll review. Small businesses and other interested parties participated fully.
      120
      The SBS subsequently submitted a report to the Inland Revenue that will feed into the consultation process. However, I am afraid that Conservative Members will have to wait for the Budget report for more details, as the Carter committee was set up by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no news of any imminent report.
      The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said that the regulatory impact assessment was incomplete and uncosted. He suggested too that the cost of following the regulations provided for in the Bill was not included in the assessment. The implication was that those costs would be the wine bill that would follow the bill for the main courses.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the RIA will be updated and placed before the House with all secondary legislation fully costed. However, the RIA that is in both Libraries of the House contains the best estimates of the costs of meeting both primary and secondary legislation. It is therefore wrong to say that the existing RIA does not cover the costs of meeting requirements imposed by secondary legislation. I am aware that Opposition Members have tried to add to the costs imposed by the Bill, and a later amendment that would extend statutory paternity pay to the self-employed would carry with it a considerable cost.
      I do not believe that we have to make a choice between helping business and helping the work force. I believe that we can do both. The evaluations that we conduct will look at costs but also at benefits for employers and public funds. They will take account of the time that it takes for the impacts to be felt. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that these amendments are unnecessary. An assessment of the kind proposed in new clause 1 would be too narrow, too soon, and conducted too often. The proposal in new clause 3 could well mean more bureaucracy and red tape for employers, and the proposal in new clause 4 would duplicate work already in hand.
      I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendments. Failing that, I hope that the House will reject them.
      Mr. Hammond: To continue the culinary metaphor, I sense that the House is anxious to move on to other items on the menu, so I shall attempt to be brief. I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to hear that we will get rid of the big tent a little later on, and that we will resort to our customary small tents pitched on opposite sides of the parliamentary divide.
      I am disappointed by the Minister's tone. I did not expect him to accept the new clause, but I hoped that he would make a more significant gesture in respect of the need for ongoing monitoring of the costs and benefits—and I emphasise the latter—arising from the Bill, and their distribution. In the absence of a provision in the Bill requiring that such assessments be made, we shall have to rely on what might be called unmandated assessments by the Department. It will be for Opposition Members to keep the Government on their toes by making sure that the matter remains in focus after the Bill has come into force. We will then be in a better position to evaluate its real impact.
      I want to thank my hon. Friends the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and

      121
      for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) for their valuable contributions to the debate. Many small businesses are worried about the Bill's implications for them, and the extent of the burdens that it will impose. It is important that we explore such matters with the Government properly and thoroughly. Finally, while we remain inside the big tent in this debate, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) for his support.
      The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) a couple of times mentioned the proposal in new clause 1 for an assessment of average costs on business. I accept that there is no meaningful concept of an average cost of doing something: different businesses will have different costs. The proposal was an attempt to establish a crude and dirty form of reimbursement that at least would recognise the costs being imposed on business.
      I am disappointed that, in the 21st century, Government Members and the Minister are still capable of believing that the Government should legislate to impose benefits on business. If something benefits business, all the Government have to do is to help and encourage it through education so that smaller businesses in particular can be aware of the evidence in support of the assertion that a practice will be beneficial. I can think of no case where there is credible evidence that the Government, using the blunt instrument of legislation, have been best positioned to impose on businesses the benefits that they believe will flow from these measures.
      I readily and willingly recognise that, in many cases, there will be benefits from many of the courses of action resulting from the Bill. One of the pities of the Bill is that, in many cases, we are talking about things that good employers are doing and are willing to do, and about areas where the arrangements and relationships between employees and employers are appropriate. The Government are seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all solution by imposing, by statute, a requirement that their practices be followed in every workplace.
      I am disappointed by the tone of what the Minister said, but I shall look forward to seeing the evaluations to which he referred. It will be our duty to keep a close watch on those evaluations and to probe their results as they become available. I am sorry to upset the Government Whips, who may have sent out a pager message, but in view of the fact that the debate is tightly timetabled and that there is exciting business further on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF WIDENING DEFINITION OF 'EMPLOYEE'
      '.—The powers granted to the Secretary of State in this Act to provide by Regulations that persons who do not fall within the definition of "employee" are to be treated as employees for the purposes of the Act and persons who fall within the definition of employee are not to be treated as employees for the purposes of the Act shall not be exercised until such time as

      (1) the Secretary of State has prepared and published an assessment of the need for and expected effects of any proposed exercise of such powers; and

      122

      (2) the Secretary of State has prepared and published an assessment of the expected costs and benefits of any proposed exercise of such powers and of the incidence of such costs and benefits.'—[Mr. Hammond.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause deals with issues that will be familiar to those who served on the Standing Committee. In Committee shorthand, it was known as the "employee versus worker" question. In parts of the Bill, a curious architecture is employed, which is repeated in new clause 6(8)(c). It says that the Secretary of State may by order
      "make provision for this section to apply, with or without modifications, as if—

      (i) any individual of a description specified in the order who would not otherwise be an employee for the purposes of this section were an employee for those purposes, and

      (ii) a person of a description specified in the order were in the case of any such individual, the individual's employer for those purposes."

      We have a counter-intuitive provision in the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to define somebody as an employee and somebody else as his employer, even where they are not in that relationship.
      The reason for this provision is that our employment law is somewhat confused. In some places, it refers to employees and in others, it refers to workers—for example, in the minimum wage legislation and the working time directive. EU directives typically refer to workers, rather than employees, but the rules governing transposition of directives into national legislation seem to allow that definition to be narrowed when directives are transposed into domestic law. That seems to be the Government's legal advice. The TUC appears to have different legal advice, which goes to show that one can get as many opinions as one can afford barristers to give them.
      There is a dispute in relation to the fixed-term work provision of the Bill. The TUC disputes the Government's interpretation, which is that the EU directive applies only to employees. I understand that the TUC is threatening legal action to clarify the situation in the future.
      Who are these workers who are not employees? The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but probably Members of Parliament, as office holders, are workers—at least some of them are—who are not employees. A more important category of workers who are not employees are agency workers working for a company but not employed by it.
      It is important that I set out the Opposition's position. We believe that for the UK to maintain and enhance its competitiveness, it is essential that we maintain flexibility in our work force. We recognise the increasing need in the modern workplace for flexible working. I will argue against anything that reduces flexibility in the labour force.
      Some, if not all, elements within the trade union movement appear to regard any form of non-conventional work as "Mickey Mouse" jobs. It is important that we change that attitude through education. We must make it clear that there is a role for flexible and unconventional

      123
      work in our economy to maintain and enhance our productivity and efficiency and to defend Britain's role in the world.
      Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most parts of the trade union movement have been keen on allowing flexibility to assist people to have better working arrangements? However, the main aim is to ensure that that flexibility is operated within an environment in which there is still protection for people's rights. We do not want a system in which, for example, an employer can say at the beginning of the day that a worker has to work an extra three hours that night. The question is how we marry decent employment rights to the flexibility that can be of benefit to people in running their lives and to their employers.
      Mr. Hammond: It is interesting that the hon. Lady approaches the issue of flexibility purely in terms of flexible working hours. Flexible working arrangements and non-conventional working patterns go wider than that, encompassing fixed-term working and, in some cases, the outsourcing of work, in which someone moves from being an employee to being a self-employed contractor. That has happened in the Post Office in relation to Parcelforce delivery van drivers. The Minister may tell us something about that, as he is an expert on that subject.
      There are a range of flexible approaches to work. My perception—I hope I am wrong—is that parts of the trade union movement are still relatively hostile to some of those non-conventional work patterns; for example, to the use of agency workers in business to provide flexibility at the margin to respond to demand.
      That must change, but the Opposition are not in the business of defending abuse. If an elaborate ruse has been developed to pretend that somebody is not an employee, that is an abuse and it is right to deal with it. We heard some scary stories in Committee about fixed-term workers who were on their 40th fixed-term, six-month contract, having been in the same place of employment for 20 years. That is not what we are about. We do not want to deny employees proper protection by allowing artificial classifications of their work to continue.
      The Secretary of State has instituted a review of the wider issue of the definition of "employee" and "worker" across the board of employment legislation. The Minister said repeatedly in Committee that the Secretary of State would not use the powers she had under the Bill to define a person as an employee and another person as his employer if they were not employee and employer, unless and until the review is completed. The new clause goes further, in that it looks for a proper assessment of the need for and the expected effects of any proposed exercise of these powers.
      The new clause looks for the review to produce more than just a decision to do something; it looks for a proper and full appraisal of the arguments for doing something—in other words, the way in which the proposed change is expected to deal with the mischief that is expressed. It would require a full assessment of the expected costs and benefits and their incidence.
      The Government come under pressure from the trade unions. I do not suggest that that is improper—they also come under pressure from some Labour Back Benchers. In Committee, some Labour Back Benchers put pressure
      124
      on them rapidly to resolve the employee-worker issue. We are concerned that those powers are unnecessary because, if the Secretary of State waits until the review is completed and a comprehensive approach to that legal problem is formulated, consulted on and properly debated in the House, a broader Bill will be needed to deal with not only the issues raised by the Bill, but existing employment legislation.
      We are forced to ask ourselves why such provisions have been included in the Bill. Our concern is that the Minister is perhaps offering a sop to the trade union agenda and the pressure that he is coming under. After all, the Labour party received £9 million from the trade unions at the last election, and it is not surprising if the Government are asked for something in exchange. The Minister is wincing. Was the figure not £9 million? If the figure was slightly different, he will no doubt correct me. Compared to the Formula 1 and Hinduja scandals, £9 million is a tremendously large sum and we might expect some pressure to be put on the Government.
      Can we be sure that the review is not a cosmetic exercise? Can we be sure that the Government have not already decided to bow to that bit of the trade union agenda and cave in on the employee-worker issue? Under new clause 2, we seek to place at the end of the current review process a rigorous and proper assessment of the need for and the effects of the proposed exercise and its costs and benefits. The purpose is simply to ensure that there is a proper, fully informed debate.
      Mr. Prisk: Does my hon. Friend agree that, under new clause 2, we not only seek to stimulate that debate, but in a sense adhere to the spirit of the National Audit Office's view that any new proposal should be properly assessed and involve a regulatory impact assessment?
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I have to tell him candidly and in confidence that I am not optimistic that the Minister will accept the new clause, I hope that, in response to it, he will take the opportunity on the Floor of the House to confirm that there will be no move to implement the powers under the Bill to change the definition of "worker" so that workers are covered by its scope until the review process is completed, the proper assessments have been carried out, a consultation exercise on the proposed legislative changes has been undertaken and general legislation is introduced to do at a stroke whatever needs to be done across all employment legislation.
      In other words, I seek an assurance from the Minister that the inclusion of such provisions in the Bill does not imply that, on the basis of a quick and dirty analysis immediately after the review is completed and as a sop to the trade union agenda, he will present the prospect of including workers in the Bill's scope ahead of a more comprehensive solution if the review deems that necessary. I hope that good practice will require him to do what he would be asked to do under new clause 2, and that he will confirm what I have asked him to confirm so that Conservative Members can be comfortable in the knowledge that the changes will be made on the basis of properly assessed need, cost and benefit.
      I hope that the changes will not be part of a wider political trade-off in the Labour party's smoke-filled tower, with Ministers desperately bidding to win trade

      125
      union leaders' support for their privatisation of public services, while simultaneously keeping up the flow of cash into Labour party coffers. We hope that the Government will not be tempted to offer sacrifices that perhaps impose more burdens on private sector businesses, while saving Ministers' bacon and the Labour party's funding.
      6.45 pm
      Frankly, those are our fears, and I hope that the Minister will be able to allay them by accepting new clause 2 or, if he is not in a generous enough mood to do that, perhaps by confirming that he will follow the procedures that I suggest and not use the powers under this Bill until a general Bill is introduced to do so—if, indeed, that is the conclusion of the review.
      Mr. Lloyd: I thought that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a fascinating speech. I congratulate him on becoming skilled at presenting an almost acceptable face for the modern Conservative party. He tries his very best to make calm, seemingly rational contributions on various issues. Indeed, he spoke for the Opposition in that manner in Committee, with one or two exceptions. Nevertheless, we get down to the visceral Tory inside him when he talks about giving sops to the trade union agenda and caving in on the worker-employee issue. Let us be a little more grown up than that. The worker-employee question involves very real issues. The simple fact is that there is genuine legal debate about the implementation of the fixed-term directive and whether the British Government's interpretation of EU law and its incorporation into national legislation is acceptable. The matter may or may not end up in the courts, but it is a serious issue.
      Fixed-term contracts in higher education present us with an especially serious issue. Some 11 per cent. of employees in higher education are now on fixed-term contracts. Frankly, it ought to be astonishing that the hire-and-fire mentality is used to run our academic institutions. Let us be brutally honest: we are talking not about universities and higher education institutions dealing with the sudden excess demand that arises in the summer, when 27 more undergraduate courses in physics or philosophy may be required, but about universities cushioning themselves so that they can take on or get rid of staff at summary notice. Many of those people have been employed on fixed-term contracts for many years. Frankly, that is an abuse, and it would be a shame if the current system continued in perpetuity
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument—I am with him in that I, too, want to find a comprehensive solution to the worker-employee issue—but he may feel slightly slighted if I tell him that I do not believe that it is the Conservative party's ambition to sort out the issue in favour of those who are often in the most marginal employment circumstances and who will lose that sort of protection. I hold that view because at no time during their 18 years in government did the Conservatives go down that path. There is no evidence that they even wanted to recognise those issues. In fact, the opposite is the case, as they sought to cast into that employment never-never land
      126
      far too many of our fellow citizens—people who are just as entitled to dignity at work as those who are formally given the legal status of employee.
      The hon. Gentleman would have more credibility if he told us what the Conservative party would be prepared to do if it ever got back into government. What is the modern, Letwinised Conservative party prepared to do? We do not believe that it has any real credibility given the fact that Conservative Members' rhetoric runs in sharp contrast to many of the views that have been expressed. He did not talk about employers abusing their employees by imposing unacceptable employment conditions. He paid passing reference to the fact that that was not acceptable, but we need a little more than the condescending view, "We can recognise bad conditions when we see them." We need to consider how employment law can resolve such evils.
      Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back, he will remember that we had this exchange in Committee. I suggested that the Inland Revenue had generally been pretty adept at defining a person as an employee, despite all attempts by ne'er-do-wells to define them as something else. I suggested to him that that was a good model on which to base our discussion.
      Mr. Lloyd: I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman develop Conservative policy in this area. However, I remind him that an awful lot of the lags in legislation that this Government had to pick up in 1997 were a result of a deliberate and calculated policy. That sort of policy is always justified by the Opposition when the need for flexibility is discussed. He is right that flexibility is important. It is important to employers and it is right and proper that employment relations should be structured so as to allow industry to be maximally efficient. There is no argument about that, and certainly none that mainstream trade unionists would want to advance.
      There is also an argument that flexibility cuts the other way and is also about giving the employee access to acceptable working conditions and the opportunity to take advantage of them. We did not hear a lot in the previous debate or even in the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the need for flexibility for employees. In that context, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect hard on what is being said, because the new clause has all the marks of a wrecking amendment. It is superficially attractive—it asks us to delay, to wait and to look for a little more information—but the real intent is to cement the current position more permanently, so the day will never dawn when employers are forced to face up to their real responsibilities.
      Mr. Hammond: Whether that day will dawn will be in the Government's hands when they complete the review. The point of the new clause and of what I have said to the Minister is to seek his assurance that no piecemeal approach will be taken using the order-making power in the Bill and that he will wait until a comprehensive solution has been proposed, consulted on and implemented across the board as a definitive remedy. Does the hon. Gentleman support that approach?
      Mr. Lloyd: No, I do not, and I shall explain why. The issues are intellectually and practically separable.

      127
      A decision on what is right and proper in relation to the aspects of the Bill that are covered by the new clause can be made coherently on its own merits. My hon. Friend the Minister will have the legal capacity to make that decision if it is in the interests of the operation of industry, commerce, employers and employees. I urge him to do it at the right time, subject to proper consideration. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that these matters require adequate consultation, but there will be no need to wait if we know what is the right thing to do.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman more generally that we must resolve the overall problem of the definition of employee and worker. I repeat that if he is asking us simply to delay the resolution of that problem, he will find no support among Labour Members. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be reasonably robust in his response and tell him that he is making a good try. However, the real Tory view is coming out in little soundbites designed for the Federation of Small Businesses and in Conservative central office press releases. That is the real voice that he wants the country to hear. Alas, the mask begins to slip away as we reach the end of debate. We look forward to more of that mask slipping to reveal the real Tory party.
      Brian Cotter: There was much talk about tents earlier. On this occasion, we are in need of a tent; indeed, we have our own very large tent that is expanding by the day. People are flocking into it because we have our own view on all these issues. When the Government have been correct, we have supported them. Otherwise, we have taken an alternative view.
      The Minister will recollect that, in Committee, I suggested that we should be able to incorporate the concept of worker into the Bill. To put us into line with the EU directive, it was not unreasonable for us to do so. I shall not rehearse our discussion in Committee of the various examples of people who are workers but are not covered by the fair social requirements of the Bill. I am worried that the Conservatives' new clause would not merely allow the Government's review of employment status to decide this issue, but put in its way blocks such as the requirement to prepare and publish reasons for the action and an assessment of additional costs in relation to it.
      This issue must be addressed to put us in line with other countries, and I expect the Government to do that sooner rather than later. I look forward to them addressing it as soon as possible.
      Ms Walley: Before my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I want to express my concerns about this issue. I did not have the dubious distinction of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill, so I was not party to the shorthand that has been used to describe employees and workers. Clause 45 is about fixed-term work and I hope that he will take full account of the views expressed.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to dinosaurs in the trade union movement and to scandals of various kinds. However, I remind him of the scandal of workers whose employers classify them as such not for reasons of flexibility but because they want to deny them basic employment rights. That cannot be right, especially when we come to interpret important European directives.
      128
      I flagged up this issue on Second Reading, and I have corresponded with the Minister on it since then. I am grateful to him for considering the points that I have made and I am fully aware that a review is under way. However, the regulations on part-time workers apply to the broader category of workers. The directive that gives effect to the part-time workers regulations and that which gives effect to the fixed-term work regulations contain an identical definition of worker. Therein lies the problem.
      Clearly, the Government will not accept the new clause, but it refers to the distinction in relation to considering future definitions. On logical grounds—and perhaps legal one—sit is unsatisfactory for the proposed fixed-term work regulations to have a restricted application. That will give rise to uncertainty and confusion for workers and employers. Part-time workers will have protection under the part-time workers regulations, but fixed-term workers will not have protection under the fixed-term work regulations. However, part-time fixed-term workers will have protection under the part-time workers regulations. That is an anomaly.
      The representations made by the TUC in respect of establishing consistency on how to define workers and employees should be addressed as quickly as possible. I would not like the House to accept a new clause that would further prevent the Government from considering the distinction between workers and employees. They need to resolve the matter quickly, especially in view of constituents such as mine who are not receiving their fair employment rights because of the failure to resolve the issue.
      Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) that it is a shame that the new Tory veneer of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has faded away and that the old Tory is revealed in the claim that these policies are dictated to us by the trade union movement. It is water off a duck's back.
      7 pm
      The hon. Gentleman alleges that contributions to the Labour party have influenced its policy. We would love to know who contributed to the Conservative party when it was in government between 1979 and 1997. That would be fascinating to hear, because it might enable us to draw the same conclusions and to make the same cheap points. The truth is, however, that we do not know because it is a secret. We do not know who contributed a penny of the considerable funds that went to the Conservative party up to 1997. Labour party funding is open, transparent and governed by law. We introduced the legislation that insists on all political parties being similarly frank about the money that they receive. Before we are criticised, we deserve to know who funded the Conservative party in their 18 years in government.
      Llew Smith: The Labour party was born from the trade union movement. Why should we apologise for that or refuse to recognise that we are influenced by it?
      Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right; we have nothing to apologise for. It is interesting to note that the trade union movement in many other countries donates

      129
      money to mainstream right-of-centre political parties. We have the curious anomaly in this country that no one would consider donating money to a party that, alone among the mainstream right-of-centre political parties, until recently opposed the provision of decent and civilised standards for people at work. Conservative Members should think about that extraordinary paradox.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unlike company shareholders, who have no say in donating money to the Conservative party, individual trade union members have a right not only to opt out, but to vote on the union's affiliation to the Labour party and on donations?
      Alan Johnson: Another important point. Were we to have a transparent debate on who funded the political parties that have been in government over—to pluck a figure out of the air—the past 23 years, the Conservatives would regret the day they moved on to this territory. It was unworthy of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to suggest that the trade union movement donates funds on any basis other than the desire to have a properly funded party that is broadly sympathetic to free and independent trade unionism. If he doubts that, he should accompany me when I meet my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to discuss what policies the trade union movement proposes.
      The hon. Gentleman is also mistaken in thinking that we need primary legislation because of the employment status review. We already have similar powers to extend a wide range of employment rights to non-employees by using the order-making power in section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. That has been in effect since October 1999 without creating the problems that he foresees. We have to take additional order-making powers in the three main clauses because they do not relate to employment rights per se, so we cannot rely on section 23 to extend their coverage to non-employees.
      On the substance of the new clause, I am happy to reaffirm that we will review employment status in relation to statutory employment rights under section 23. The mechanics of the review have commenced. We hope to publish the consultation document in late spring, when we intend to set out a radical approach. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to use powers contained in the clauses in advance of that comprehensive review.
      Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned the problem in the higher education sector. It is crucial that we sort that out effectively and I hope that it will be a priority. The current situation is untenable for lecturers and for the interests of academic work. It needs urgent attention.
      Alan Johnson: We will consider that and other aspects of the employee versus worker issue.
      The fixed-term work directive is incorporated in the Bill and covers pay and pensions. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that we discussed that directive in Committee. Unlike the part-time workers directive, it is
      130
      not clear that the term "employee" causes a problem by leaving groups of workers outside the embrace of the fixed-term work directive. People have mentioned agricultural casual workers, but we established that they have a contract and are employees for the purposes of the Bill. It would not be possible to walk through a Post Office sorting office without tripping over a sociology student from Sheffield university who is employed as a casual worker by a contract of employment and is, therefore, covered by the fixed-term work directive. Incidentally, part-time people on fixed-term contracts are covered by virtue of the fact that the part-time workers directive covers workers and employees.
      The biggest problem that we discussed in Committee related to employment agency staff. The social partners who signed the fixed-term work directive specifically excluded agency staff because they decided to have a directive that was aimed purely at agency staff, one of the three groups of atypical workers. It would be ludicrous to extend the Bill to cover employment agency staff in advance of the review under section 23 and of the directive, which the Commission is now producing since the social partnership broke down. That is why the fixed-term work directive should not be extended to cover workers at this stage. We could consider the issue in the review.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not daft enough to think that I would accept his new clause, and I hope that I have reassured him on that fundamental point.
      Mr. Hammond: I suppose I should return the compliment given by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd): he sometimes manages to look like the acceptable face of old Labour, and one has to peel away the veneer to see what is going on behind. For all the talk of big tents, some people will be relieved to know that the small tents are alive and well. They are close at hand should we ever need them, as I suspect some of us might in the forthcoming debate.
      There is a proper issue at stake. I have acknowledged that and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central is doing me an injustice in suggesting that I pay lip service to it. Apart from anything else, there is a ridiculous confusion. There is no point in having legislation that cannot be understood by a reasonably educated English-speaking person. Clearly the confusion between worker and employee has become intolerable and needs sorting out. We merely want to ensure that that is properly and objectively dealt with on the basis of the facts, of the benefits that are likely to flow from any changes and the costs of making the changes.
      We are trying to disentangle the real issue from what I characterise as political horse trading. The hon. Gentleman might deny that until he is blue in the face, but the Opposition and most of the 56 million people in this country do not believe that difficult discussions do not take place on items of the trade union movement's agenda, because it funded the Government to the tune of £9 million to fight the general election campaign that put them here. We want to ensure that this issue is not lost in political horse trading but dealt with properly and objectively on the basis of the facts. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that at face value; it is up to him whether he does so. I detected in some of his comments

      131
      a hint of the old attitude that any job that does not conform to a conventional work pattern is a Mickey Mouse job. We must try to get away from that.
      Mr. Lloyd: I shall read with interest not only the hon. Gentleman's speech but my own, and I think that if he reads my speech carefully he will detect no such attitude. Flexible working is in the interests of an efficient economy and, very often, it is in the interests of employees; but we must get the balance right.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman must understand that such work involves not only flexible working times and patterns for employees but what the Minister described as atypical forms of work. Typically, atypical workers will be difficult to unionise, and I understand that there will be an instinctive reluctance on the part of the trade unions to embrace atypical forms of work. That is a legitimate, self-interested approach, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we must change our attitude in the interests of maintaining flexibility in the economy and trying to maintain our competitiveness against our European neighbours, many of whom are now beginning to embrace concepts of flexibility in the work force after years of our deriding them for not doing so. We must accept that atypical workers will form an important part of this country's total labour force.
      In this debate the Minister has, perhaps tactically, thrown up a little smoke in anticipation of the debate to come. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to stray too far into the subject of trade union funding for the Labour party, but the Bill is about delivering part of the trade union agenda. I am not saying that that agenda is wholly wrong or that we should reject it, but we are entitled to question the relationship between the Government, acting as the Government of the day, the Labour party, recipient of substantial largesse from the trade union movement, and the trade union movement, which has an open and published agenda, some of which is being incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, some of it has been incorporated at a late stage in the Bill's passage. That is a legitimate public concern, and we would be failing in our duty as an Opposition if we were not probing the matter and asking questions.
      Judy Mallaber rose—
      Mr. Hammond: I give way for the last time.
      Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman at least accept that the motivation of Labour Members on issues such as those that I pursue, including rights for part-time workers, the worker-employee issue that I raised in Committee, decent working conditions and the ability to combine family and work, arises from genuine individual concern and just happens to be the same as that of the trade unions? Will he please stop casting aspersions on our motivation, because it is not influenced by the question of whether there is money in the equation? I espouse those views regardless of money. Does he accept that Labour Members' motivation is honourable?
      Mr. Hammond: I suggest that the hon. Lady get herself a slightly thicker skin. We have a Government who got themselves elected in 2001 on £9 million of trade union money and a pledge to bring the trade unions to
      132
      heel and impose a solution to reform our public services. So far, all we have seen is repeated backtracking. Conservative Members are entitled to ask, "What is going on?" We are scrutinising a Bill that implements a significant number of items on the TUC's published agenda. There is nothing wrong with that published agenda, but we are entitled to ask questions.
      7.15 pm
      Andrew Mackinlay rose—
      Mr. Hammond: Although I said that I would not give way again, I am tempted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Andrew Mackinlay: I think that there is a third angle. [HON. MEMBERS: "A third way?"] No, a third angle—there is a substantial difference. I have been listening to the debate, and I can no longer restrain myself from speaking. I am of the view that the trade unions are far too acquiescent, and they do not flex their muscles on the Labour party's national executive. They have not exercised their right to interfere with manifestos. This is a matter that will come out in memoirs, but it needs to be said. My criticism is that trade union officials sit on their hands at the national executive committee when the manifesto is being drawn up; they are too deferential to people from the Prime Minister downwards, and then they go to the TUC conference—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) responds, I point out that we are dealing not with memoirs but with new clause 2, and I trust that he will bear that in mind when he responds to the intervention.
      Mr. Hammond: Of course I shall bear it in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will stay to regale the House with his thoughts in the next debate.
      The Minister accused me of being veneered. I always think of veneer as rather cheap, and I prefer to be thought of as solid. He suggested that my veneer was peeling away, but we are beginning to see some veneer peeling away on the Labour Back Benches. We have a Prime Minister who appears to be biting the trade union hand that feeds him, and who describes as "wreckers" people who oppose the Government's mandated agenda for reform of the public services, and we have Conservative Members who seek to advance the trade union agenda. It will be interesting for us and, I suspect, for the public, including my constituents who only narrowly avoided a strike by South West Trains today, to see how the Minister responds to some of those issues later this evening.
      I sense the House is ready to move on to the next debate. Conservative Members are somewhat reassured by what the Minister has said about the non-piecemeal implementation of the results of the review being undertaken by his Department. We look forward to a full and proper debate on the conclusions of that review before any secondary legislation is proposed. The Minister has previously indicated that there will be proper consultation

      133
      and an opportunity for parliamentary review. In the interests of economy of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      PARTICIPATION IN OFFICIAL INDUSTRIAL ACTION
      '(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
      (2) In section 238A (participation in official industrial action)—

      (a) In subsection (2) the word "(a)" and the words ", and (b) subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies to the dismissal" are repealed; and

      (b) subsections (3) to (7) are repealed.'—[Mr. Lloyd.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Dismissal and participation in industrial action—
      '(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
      (2) Subsection (2B) of section 238 (dismissals in connection with other industrial action) shall cease to have effect.
      (3) Section 238A (participation in official industrial action) shall cease to have effect.'.
      Mr. Lloyd: It is interesting that new clause 5 is grouped with new clause 8 in the name of Conservative Members. I think that, once again, we will see a sharp divide. There has been talk of big tents, but there are big marquees on the Conservative Benches and tents on the Labour Benches—we know which interest the Conservative party ultimately seeks to represent in these issues.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) does not seem to understand that it is possible to have the concept of fairness in the workplace. We ought to strive towards that and try to ensure that our legal regime is fair for employees and employers because, in the end, that proper balance is in the interests of individual industries companies and society in general. The hon. Gentleman must accept that an attempt to erode the advances made by the Employment Relations Act 1999 would be not only counterproductive but grossly unfair. The Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is in his place, was the architect of that pioneering and transforming legislation. Not only the House but the country owes him a debt, because that measure moved industrial relations a long away from the confrontational view of the world of work that characterised the 18 years of Conservative Government. The Conservative new clause coupled with mine—in fact, I hope it is not coupled with mine—would move the clock backwards.
      Among other things, the 1999 Act provided recognition that when a lawful industrial dispute occurred, it was not only unreasonable and unacceptable, but incompetent to allow an employer simply to dismiss the work force. That power to dismiss was used relatively rarely. I am sure that
      134
      we will hear a lot from Conservative Members about South West Trains and all manner of cases, but the notion that a large organisation like South West Trains would seek to dismiss its work force is ridiculous—a work force cannot be got rid of or replaced overnight from the queue at the benefits office. However, some individual employers used that lack of legal protection for employees on strike and got rid of them to resolve an industrial dispute. There is in such action nothing of the concept of fairness at work, nor of negotiation, nor of trying to find an acceptable balance. It is simple abuse of power by one party—the party privy to all the power.
      It is a matter of fact that the right to strike is recognised in international obligations, for example, the International Labour Organisation convention. The legitimate right to strike is accepted throughout the world. Nothing in that suggests that there is a desire to strike, or that there is always a happy conclusion to strikes—industrial disputes can be bitter and difficult to resolve. However, sometimes the only industrial weapon that employees have at their disposal is withdrawal of their labour. The 1999 Act acknowledged the right to strike and provided that an employer who tried to dismiss people during the first eight weeks of an industrial dispute would be deemed to have acted unfairly, so employees would have recourse through industrial tribunals. It is right and proper that there is protection that forbids employers to take arbitrary action during the initial phase of an industrial dispute.
      It is also a matter of fact that the overwhelming majority of industrial disputes last for nowhere near eight weeks. Eight weeks is an extraordinarily long time for people to withdraw their labour. I remind the Opposition that people who go on strike do not simply not go to work: they do not get paid, they have no money to support their families, and they get none of the things that take people to work in the first place. To strike is no small action.
      The eight-week cut-off undoubtedly reflects some sort of compromise. Those who argue that there is a trade union agenda would say that many trade unions wanted more than eight weeks, but the Government at the time took the view that since the provision was a new one, eight weeks was appropriate. However, since the passage of the 1999 Act, we have gained experience of the practical operation of the legislation.
      Let me tell the House about a company in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), in which constituents of many of my colleagues representing that part of Wales work. Friction Dynamics was originally part of the Turner and Newell group; it made brake linings and had been in existence for many years. The current owners took over in 1996, and between that time and roughly this time last year, the relationship between management and those who worked for the company deteriorated. Many of the employees had worked there for many years—far longer than Mr. Craig Smith, the current employer, had been at the company.
      Contemplation of industrial action was triggered by changes that Mr. Smith wanted to make. Some of those changes affected the company's health and safety regime, others involved arbitrary and swingeing cuts of 15 per cent. in basic pay rates, and cuts in shift premiums. The management proposed those serious changes, and the members of the Transport and General Workers Union in the company balloted on and took industrial action: they

      135
      went on strike. After striking for one week, those people tried to go back to work, but Mr. Smith locked them out of the workplace—an arbitrary action.
      Hon. Members might say the strike and the lock-out were equally arbitrary, but let us not attempt to judge the merits of either. I am not here to discuss the merits of Mr. Smith's stewardship of the company, although there are serious questions about how he got there and how the company got into that position. However, during the period of the lock-out, there was no meaningful attempt on his part to negotiate with the trade unions or his employees, only his insistence that he would make the proposed changes. I mentioned that Mr. Smith tried to change the health and safety regime. During the dispute, someone still working in the company lost some fingers; that was because health and safety protection was poor after the employer reduced it.
      At the end of the eight-week period, Mr. Smith decided summarily to sack all the members of his work force who had been on strike for one week and had been locked out for a further seven. If Conservative Members rise to justify Friction Dynamics' actions in that case, we will know exactly what the Tory party is about, but I trust that they will speak to the issue. Hard cases define whether law is good or bad. The case I describe does not represent a romantic retreat into old-fashioned trade union defence. This is 2002, and I am talking about a real work force comprising real people whose rights in the workplace were arbitrarily snuffed out by their employer.
      Mrs. Betty Williams: At the start of my intervention, I declare that I am a full paid-up member of the TGWU. I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Friction Dynamics, from which 87 workers were deplorably dismissed during the events he describes. Many are constituents of mine, and they have assured me that they give new clause 5 their wholehearted support. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware that they brought their case here to Westminster; they lobbied us hard, seeking support for their cause. The 1999 Act gave protection to my constituents for eight weeks—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady appears to be starting a speech. She has made a long enough intervention. I call Mr. Lloyd to continue his speech.
      Mr. Lloyd rose—
      Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is to be the habit that everyone declares what they are, I should make it clear that I belong to the TGWU, I am closely associated with the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, and I formerly worked with the National and Local Government Officers Association, now part of Unison. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you cut me in half, you will find that I am like a stick of rock, with trade unions running all the way through me.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: if hon. Members interests are on the Register of Members' Interests, it is important that they declare them; otherwise, it is entirely a matter for individual Members to decide.
      Mr. Lloyd: In a way, that is the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge had a little fun suggesting that there was
      136
      something terribly unpleasant about the relationship between trade unions and other members of society, specifically Members of Parliament. The trade union agenda for the work force at Friction Dynamics was extremely clear. It was explicit. It was felt that the work force had been dealt with atrociously by the management and that they were legitimately seeking recourse to Parliament to persuade Members that an injustice had been done. Parliament was asked to resolve an injustice. There was no Luddite trade unionism; instead, the proper and acceptable use of the parliamentary system was employed.
      7.30 pm
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I am not aware of the case of Friction Dynamics, but it seems to be an appalling one. Is it not the case that if the employer had refused to negotiate, to seek conciliation and to engage in arbitration, the dismissals that he pushed through would have been unfair, and the unions would have been able to have the employees reinstated through the tribunal process?
      Mr. Lloyd: They would not have been able to have the employees reinstated because the tribunal would not have that capacity. It is a romantic view to bring back reinstatement. There are many examples of employees who have gone to tribunals following dismissal. The idea of going back to the same workplace would be ridiculous. I do not say that unkindly, but there would not be that possibility.
      The hon. Gentleman has touched on a point that I intended to make—
      Llew Smith: I, too, am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I do not apologise because I am quite proud of that fact.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) seemed to imply that there is virtually no difference between a strike and a lock-out in the context of Friction Dynamics. I was staggered. The Friction Dynamics' work force are defending their conditions and health and safety standards. Is it surprising that they would want to do so? Surely going on strike in those circumstances is different from a lock-out, where conditions are removed from the work force.
      Mr. Lloyd: That is right.
      Almost certainly the employer's ambition from the beginning was to engineer an industrial dispute. It is up to the employer now to demonstrate that that was not the case and that he did not sack the members of his work force with a view to eroding the terms and working conditions of those at Friction Dynamics.
      As a trade unionist, I would not be prepared to defend that form of industrial relations. I am the chairman of a company limited by guarantee. It does not make profits and I receive no personal remuneration. However, I must take serious responsibility as an employer, and the company's employers are the people. Come the day when I could be accused of abusing other people's employment rights in the way that is alleged of Friction Dynamics, I would be ashamed even as a Conservative Member, let alone a Labour Member.
      Norman Lamb: I am a member of the Law Society and a consultant to a law firm. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks while declaring those interests.

      137
      The case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred highlights what I would regard as a loophole in the provision that provides for an eight-week protected period. I agree that it is ludicrous that locking out the work force for seven weeks after an initial one week on strike enables the employer to take advantage of the provision.
      Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his new clause goes much further than addressing that loophole? It removes entirely the concept of an eight-week protected period for people on strike.
      Mr. Lloyd: It certainly goes further than addressing the loophole to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
      What is the right that Conservative Members will be seeking to erode even within the eight-week period? It is not only the right to maintain employment, although the employer will not be stopped from sacking people; we are talking about the right to go before an industrial tribunal for assessment. I accept that that is much better than nothing, and that in some instances there can be exemplary payments. However, I think that the maximum award that a tribunal can make is £50,000. Someone who loses his job, especially in an area of relatively high unemployment, can lose much more than £50,000, through loss of income and loss of pension entitlement for example. The House should reflect on that. This is not a trivial point.
      The right to go to a tribunal is not the equivalent of the right to stay in work to ensure that the process of arbitration is carried forward under ACAS or whatever.
      Mr. Hammond: I am not familiar with the Friction Dynamics case, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned plea on behalf of the work force. Will he tell the House something about the economic fundamentals of the business? Is it a hugely profitable business with an avaricious owner who is seeking to make yet larger profits, or is it, as I suspect, a marginal business that is placed under threat of its very existence by competition from abroad? What are the circumstances?
      Mr. Lloyd: I am not in a position to reveal the company's balance sheet. It has not been shown to me. I can tell the House that Mr. Craig Smith was engaged in a lawsuit in the United States before he bought the company. It is alleged that moneys that he used to fund the purchase of the company were in fact compensation payments to the victims of contact with asbestos. Mr. Smith might want to tell a different story, but not all of Mr. Smith's actions are those of a reputable employer.
      If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is saying that a company in financial and commercial difficulties may arbitrarily erode working conditions, refuse properly to negotiate and then sack its work force, he has a different view of the rights and responsibilities of employers. That is not merely my belief, but the view of the overwhelming majority in this country.
      Mr. Hammond: Of course I am not saying that. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman must tell us the whole story. What happened before the strike began? If Friction
      138
      Dynamics is a business that is up against the wall, facing foreign competition and its very existence is under threat, what concessions were the work force willing to make? We need to know all the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is to hang his entire argument on a specific case, he needs to ensure that Members are fully informed of the circumstances of that case.
      Mr. Lloyd: The information given to the House is fairly comprehensive. The actions of an employer who engineers a dispute by imposing swingeing cuts in pay rates and eroding the fabric of the health and safety regime are not those of a high-quality employer who is determined to build a modern Britain.
      We are talking of an employer who follows a week's industrial dispute by a lock-out—he is not at the forefront of modern management techniques. He is an employer who then sacks his work force.
      There is a little more information, that may be merely colour or emotion on my sad part. The company is the subject of an improvement order that was issued by the Health and Safety Executive because its health and safety standards are not up to scratch. That is the sort of employer about which we are talking. Conservative Members may be delighted to defend such companies, and that is fine. At least we know clearly where the tents begin and end. However, I do not want to be in a tent that defends such companies. I want to be in a world that says that the summary dismissal of employees in industrial disputes is not the way, even after eight weeks, to resolve industrial disputes. We should be moving forward by using mechanisms of arbitration.
      Mr. Weir: I understand that the work force of Friction Dynamics agreed to a pay freeze for four years. It was not a rapacious work force but one who was willing to help out the company. Yet they have been treated as the hon. Gentleman has described.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as I had forgotten that; it provides me with a reasonable answer for the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who may now begin to accept that the company is no employment angel.
      Mr. Hammond: I am not going to comment on an individual case about which I do not have the facts. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has gone a long way down the line of reciting allegations about an individual; I certainly do not want to follow that route. For the benefit of Members who may not be fully aware of the history, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the item that he is putting on the agenda in his new clause has not sprung from the Friction Dynamics case? It is a long-standing item on the TUC agenda to remove the eight-week limit.
      Mr. Lloyd: With great respect, that is a silly point. We are talking about Friction Dynamics, which is a real company; 87 people are involved. That may not matter to the Opposition Members, who may simply wish to discuss the new clause as a theoretical exercise. However, the world of work is not a theoretical exercise; it is real and matters enormously to the 87 people who have been sacked, their families and their communities.
      The House must make up its mind whether it simply regards the actions of a company like Friction Dynamics as unacceptable or whether it wishes to use its legislative

      139
      capacity to begin to move the agenda on. It should not seek to tip the balance towards the mythical trade union agenda imagined by Opposition Members, but should recognise that, at the moment, relations are one-sided; an employer who can dismiss employees has too much opportunity to exercise arbitrary power. We do not want a shift so that trade unions can determine working conditions; we are simply asking for equity and justice. It is desirable for employers to get back to the arbitration process.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect again on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)? Having moved a new clause, it is incumbent on him to tell the House its scope because we are legislating. I do not know the circumstances of the case so I shall not comment. A bad employer may well be involved, but it is still incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House the full scope of the new clause that he is asking us to accept.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was here for the early part of the debate.
      Mr. Knight: I was here for all the hon. Gentleman's speech.
      Mr. Lloyd: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened, he would have realised the full scope of the new clause, which aims to remove the present eight-week time limit on protection against unfair dismissal. That would apply to Friction Dynamics, Ciba-Geigy and any company or organisation in the land. All legal protection is bound to be based on real-life events. This is not a game or a theoretical or intellectual exercise; it is not something that we are debating in the learned debating societies of our best universities. It is about real people and real employers; it is about companies and employees. In this case, the employer, instead of choosing to work in harmony with his work force—the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made the point that the workers had already made significant sacrifices to try to maintain the company's viability—was prepared to abuse the power and rights that, sadly, the law gives him.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been generous in accepting interventions. Can he not conceive of any circumstance during an industrial dispute, however long it has gone on, in which it would be appropriate for an employer to dismiss the work force for breach of contract? For example, people may simply refuse to do the job that they have been employed to do. Can the hon. Gentleman not conceive of such a situation arising? Under his new clause, it would never be possible fairly to dismiss a striker.
      Mr. Lloyd: Holding out for the bad employer is not a rational way of going about dispute resolution. Bearing in mind that taking industrial action involves a real cost to employees, only a tiny number of industrial actions last anything like eight weeks. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the statistics; he will find that it is all there in evidence.
      140
      Conservative Members believe that they can score a political propaganda point in this kind of debate. However, if they seek to make cheap politics out of the situation, they should remember that they do so at the expense of people's livelihoods and families. The present law is defective, and does not give protection to employees; it gives too much opportunity for the arbitrary exercise of power by employers, which is why the new clause attempts to move things on.
      7.45 pm
      Llew Smith: When we debated earlier amendments, we were accused of merely responding to the demands of the trade union movement. Does my hon. Friend not think it ironic that the Opposition spokesperson appears to be responding to demands of rogue employers, of which Friction Dynamics is one?
      Mr. Lloyd: I agree, and I invite the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to make his position clear. I have outlined the case; the hon. Gentleman has tried to hide behind the protection of saying, "Well, of course I do not know the details." I have given him the details; if he wants to challenge them, he should do so. But comments on the case should relate to real people. As I said, this is not an empty exercise; it is real and is happening now.
      I have spoken for longer than I intended. I know that Opposition Members are champing at the bit because they want to reinvent their version of the class war. I shall therefore conclude my speech and make way for others.
      Hywel Williams: Hon. Members may find it instructive and useful if I give some objective information about the dispute at Friction Dynamics, which is in my Caernarfon constituency. Conservative Members may not wish to hear the facts, but I shall give them none the less.
      The dispute has dragged on for 43 weeks, and resulted in the workers being sacked after eight weeks. It is still awaiting resolution, which may not come until next May—more than a year since the dispute started—at an industrial tribunal. The current owner, Mr. Smith, took over in 1997.
      Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do the sub judice rules that we normally follow in the House not apply to employment tribunal cases?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that the comments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) affect anything that is sub judice.
      Hywel Williams: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The current owner took over in 1997 and tried to impose a four-day week without overtime, attendance at meetings without pay, removal of bargaining agreements and a no-strike agreement. The employees had agreed to a four-year pay freeze, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said. They tried to negotiate, but came to the reasonable conclusion that their employer was not interested in agreement. They have a proven commitment to the company and its predecessors; many of them have worked there for 20 or 30 years—all their working lives, in fact. Some trained there as young apprentices.

      141
      The workers would not act without thinking or without just cause, particularly given their present circumstances. They would have been aware of the consequences of being out for 43 weeks, and perhaps over a year. The union held a ballot strictly in accordance with the law, and the workers initially went on strike for a week. I accompanied them on their first day back and witnessed the employer himself locking them out; that is the nature of the relationship that he has fostered. The dispute continued. As I said, the workers were sacked after eight weeks and are still out after 43 weeks; they maintain a 24-hour picket and have acted with dignity and moderation. They, and the union, have always been willing to negotiate.
      The community in Caernarfon is solidly behind the strikers, including, Conservative Members may be interested to learn, the local business community, which has made a substantial donation to the strike fund. It realises the damage that the dispute is doing to local businesses, not least to Friction Dynamics itself. It realises the damage that is being done to investment in business in north-west Wales. It wants to see the dispute resolved, but resolved with justice.
      The employer has been enabled to sack the workers. He has been encouraged in his intransigence and unreasonable attitude by the power that the eight-week rule has afforded him. Some hon. Members might say that if protection from the sack is justified for eight weeks, it is justified thereafter. I would agree, but I would also point to the practical and catastrophic effects that have resulted from the entrenchment of the employer's power to be unreasonable.
      It cannot be right or reasonable that a strike is dragged out for 43 weeks, and eventually for more than a year. Workers at Friction Dynamics and in the community of Caernarfon cannot understand why that is allowed to happen. They do not want a tribunal. They want their jobs back in circumstances of justice and fairness. They see justice denied and justice delayed. For that reason, I am glad to support new clause 5.
      Dr. Cable: I shall deal with new clauses 5 and 8 together, as I believe that that is a more helpful way to deal with the issue. The two new clauses pull the existing balance in different directions, and in many respects in extreme directions.
      The eight-week rule was a carefully crafted compromise. One new clause seeks to eliminate it entirely, and the other seeks to make it indefinite. Both seem fundamentally unreasonable. A useful starting point—here, I believe, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) was on the right track—is to put the debate in context. We are living through a period in which industrial action is at a very low level. In the last year for which recorded figures are available, 500,000 days were lost, as against an average of 660,000 over the past decade and about 7.5 million for the 1980s, with comparable figures for the 1970s. During the present period of economic boom, one would expect more industrial action.
      Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that we are having this debate against a backdrop of what appears to be a change in trend, with a rising tide of trade union militancy facing the country?
      Dr. Cable: Indeed, there are specific points that relate to the public services, which I had intended to deal with and which present specific problems. Had new clause 8 been directed to that issue, I would have had more sympathy with it. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's new clause is broadly couched and would withdraw the eight-week rule from all employees in all disputes. I will address the current wave of unrest in a moment.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central that we are in a period of relatively subdued industrial action. It hardly calls for a major upheaval in the legislation, or one that tilts the balance radically in one direction or the other.
      Mr. Simmonds: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 5 would increase industrial discord and strike action above its present level?
      Dr. Cable: I doubt that new clause 5 would do that, but I do not support it. I doubt that the new clause would make a great deal of difference. Essentially, we are debating a point of principle, rather than its consequences.
      The underlying point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central is that the right to strike is a fundamental right and should not be qualified in the way that it currently is. I do believe that workers have a right to withdraw their labour. There should be a right to strike, but it is not an unqualified right. There are conditions: strike action must be reasonable and must take account of third parties. We will come to that when we deal with the issue of the railways, as I am sure that we will.
      Mr. Lloyd: It is one thing for the hon. Gentleman to interpret what I said, but it is another for him to make up things that I did not say. Of course the right to strike is conditioned. I pointed out that the dispute that I described had gone through the full legal provisions, a ballot and so on. It was a legal strike. A strike is quite a constrained activity in our society. Employees cannot simply walk out or withdraw their labour at a moment's notice. Those days hardly existed, and do not exist now.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke of the new clauses tilting the balance. Does he seriously believe that the change that would be introduced by new clause 5 would have any dramatic effect, taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of strikes—not just 99 per cent., but 99.999 per cent.—last for far less than the eight-week period that the provision covers?
      Dr. Cable: As I said a few moments ago, I doubt that the new clause would have any dramatic effects one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman raised it as an issue of principle, and I believe that on the issue of principle, he is wrong. If we confined the discussion to the effects on the firm described—the hon. Gentleman told a horrific story, and a rather moving one—I am sure that the facts that he gave are right and I have total sympathy with the work force involved, but the attempt to create legislation around one case seems fundamentally unsatisfactory.

      143
      As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said in an intervention, if there is genuinely an anomaly about a lock-out being included as part of a strike, that is a ludicrous situation and the legislation should be amended to deal with it, probably in another place.
      The hon. Member for Manchester, Central is in danger of creating a situation in which, say, an entirely different trade union, in a different environment, might embark on a prolonged period of industrial action—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is difficult and might be costly to the work force—without any regard for its consequences for the industry. The union might refuse to embark on arbitration or conciliation, in which case the employer might well have a genuine feeling of grievance, but there would be no opportunity for the employer to bring the dispute to an end.
      Although the hon. Gentleman was correct to say that the right to go to a tribunal is not equivalent to holding on to one's job, the fact remains that after the eight-week period, workers do have protection through the tribunal system. Statute 238A, which is the cornerstone of the Bill, provides a considerable degree of protection. I do not know what happened in the case described, when the 87 workers took the employer to a tribunal, but it provided them with a considerable level of protection, although perhaps not perfect protection. New clause 5 is an excessive response to what was clearly an unjust situation and an unjust action by that employer
      New clause 8 goes wholly in the other direction. By allowing a dismissal to take place for a strike without any period of protection whatever, it would effectively withdraw the principle of the right to strike. It would be likely to make many employers use dismissal as a first rather than a last resort.
      Mr. Hammond: My understanding is that until the Employment Relations Act 1999 came into force, that was the situation. The eight-week rule did not apply, and I do not remember it being a burning issue in this place or outside.
      Dr. Cable: I remember that there were emotive debates around the 1999 Act, when it was felt that some degree of balance should be restored. I believe that it was, and I would defend the current position.
      I would have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge if his new clause were more narrowly drawn. There is a real issue now in the public services, which is quite different from the Friction Dynamics case. In the case of the public services, the victims of the dispute are the general public. We need legislation to deal with that. In some parts of the public services, there are already restrictions on the right to strike. The most obvious and extreme case is the police force, but others are constrained in different ways.
      There is an argument for restriction within the public services, and I define public services widely to include the railways, because of the subsidy element. That restriction might well be linked to a willingness to arbitrate. There would be a case for saying that the eight-week protection could be withdrawn in certain circumstances in essential services if the parties to the dispute had refused to arbitrate. The arbitration element in that does not tip the balance towards the employer. If arbitration is
      144
      compulsory the employer is bound to take the result. The outcome is taken out of management's hands. There is a concession in both directions. If new clause 8 were more narrowly drawn, I would have more sympathy with it. If the Government come under growing pressure from industrial action, perhaps they will amend the Bill in another place. However, the new clause would apply across the national economy, including manufacturing industry, which accounts for only 10 per cent. of industrial action. That is excessive and inappropriate and I cannot therefore support it in its current form.
      8 pm
      Rob Marris: I shall be brief because we have much to discuss. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked whether there should ever be dismissals during a strike. Most, if not all hon. Members would agree that anyone who committed gross acts of violence against the person or criminal damage could be dismissed. However, many of my colleagues and I believe that no one should be dismissed simply for going on strike. Existing law allows that to happen after eight weeks.
      The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) appears to be under the illusion that those who are fired after eight weeks can simply go to an employment tribunal. They can try, but they will not succeed under current legislation. After the eight weeks have run out and the employer has fired the employee, the latter will not succeed in an employment tribunal because the dismissal does not count as unfair under existing law.
      I suspect that most hon. Members hoped that the eight-week rule would shorten industrial disputes. However, it can have the opposite effect. The employer can simply sit out the eight weeks. That tends to lead to longer disputes. If employers know that they cannot simply wait for eight weeks, but might have to wait indefinitely, it would be a greater incentive for them to bargain in good faith. Clearly, Craig Smith has not done that.
      Mr. Osborne: Those who served with the hon. Gentleman in Committee remember that he tends to talk about amendments, but not vote for them. Will he assure us that he will press new clause 5, to which he is a signatory, to the vote?
      Rob Marris: I shall give no such assurance until I have extended my hon. Friend the Minister the courtesy of listening to the Government's response. It would be foolish to do otherwise.
      Norman Lamb: If the Minister does not accept the proposals in the new clause, will the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members press it to a vote? He asserts that the protection ends when the eight weeks have elapsed. Does not he accept that section 238A (5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides continued protection when the employer has not gone through proper procedures to resolve the dispute? Protection therefore does not exist simply for eight weeks. Will he comment on that?
      Rob Marris: I shall gladly comment on both points. I did not mention proposals; I said that I would listen to

      145
      the Minister's response. Section 238A (5) simply provides people such as Craig Smith with a fig leaf. It allows them to display a veneer—a noun that was used earlier—of negotiating and going through the motions with no intention of settling a dispute. They then fire people after eight weeks. The eight-week rule tends to prolong disputes, and I do not believe that that is hon. Members' intention. Most of us want shorter disputes that are resolved justly and fairly. Clearly, that has not happened for the 87 workers from Friction Dynamics and their community.
      Does the Minister believe that the eight-week rule accords with the United Kingdom's duties under the International Labour Organisation conventions that we have signed? If it complies with their wording, does it accord with their spirit?
      Mr. George Osborne: As hon. Members would expect, I oppose new clause 5 and support new clause 8. I enjoyed serving in Committee with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who often makes a good deal of sense. However, I was not familiar with the case to which he drew our attention, and I am not convinced that it shows the need for a change in the law that would affect all companies throughout the country.
      The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) will speak on anything anywhere, but I hope that other signatories to the new clause will speak in the debate. It is interesting to learn Labour Back-Bench Members' true feelings and moods. Students of new Labour will realise that the Minister is in the ideal new Labour position of being between new clause 8, tabled by Conservative Members, and new clause 5, tabled by old Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) probably dreams of being in such a position when he is not dreaming about the Cabinet. As the Prime Minister would put it, the Minister is between Conservative wreckers and old Labour wreckers.
      Rob Marris: That puts the Minister in the position of fluid dynamics rather than Friction Dynamics.
      Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman has redeemed himself by making a good point. When the Minister rejects the new clauses and says that the principle of fairness, not favours means that the Government have to be somewhere in the middle, he will adopt the ideal third-way position, although Ministers no longer use the term, which has been dropped from the lexicon. Anyone who examines the Government's record will realise that they have handed over a stream of new powers to trade unions, including statutory recognition, protection for strikers, which new clause 5 would extend, and easing rules on strike ballots. Trade union recognition agreements have increased from a little over 100 a year under the Conservative Government to 450 last year. A huge expansion in trade union power therefore took place even before the Bill was introduced.
      The Bill grants further powers to trade unions. We have discussed the explosion in the number of union learning representatives and the example of union pressure paying off when the Government dropped the modest charging regime that they planned to introduce for employment tribunals. That miraculously happened a few days before
      146
      the Prime Minister was due to speak to the Trades Union Congress. The fixed-term European directive has been gold-plated and Conservative Members are left wondering why all that has happened. We therefore delve into the Labour party's accounts and its constitution. People who listened to our proceedings today would have been struck by the fact that almost every Labour Member who spoke voluntarily declared trade union involvement.
      The Labour party's accounts show that trade unions gave them £9.5 million in the election year. Anyone who has been involved in politics knows the indirect help that trade unions provide through advertising, manpower and so on. One does not have to be a cynic to perceive a connection between the enormous extension of trade union power under this Government and the great provision of trade union money and manpower to the Labour party.
      Mr. Weir: I have no connection with a trade union, but I am prepared to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman's speech is interesting, but new clause 8 would remove any protection from workers who are on strike. They could be sacked the day after a strike began.
      Mr. Osborne: New clause 8 would simply mean reverting to the position under the Conservative Government. Most people who consider that Government's history will probably regard their greatest achievement as curbing trade union power.
      Norman Lamb: New clause 8 proposes that:
      "Subsection (2B) of section 238"—
      of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—
      "… shall cease to have effect."
      That seems to go back beyond the position that existed through the last years of the Conservative Government, and to provide less protection than there was pre-1999. Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether that is the case?
      Mr. Hammond: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hate to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot intervene on an intervention.
      Mr. Osborne: I shall be happy to take my hon. Friend's intervention.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hesitate to say this, because I know that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is an employment lawyer, but if my memory serves me correctly, the Employment Relations Act 1999 inserted subsection (2B) into the 1992 Act to which he referred.
      Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend anticipated what I was about to say. Perhaps I should quit while I am ahead by saying that the result of the Government's actions has not been fairness, not favours, but favours, not fairness. There has been a string of new trade union powers, and we all know the reason for that. As I said earlier, the Minister is

      147
      in an ideal position to do the new Labour trick of saying that he is neither one thing nor the other and that he is in the middle, but we should not be deceived.
      Norman Lamb: I shall deal first with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who spoke of his concerns about a very real case. That highlights a potential loophole, and I invite the Minister to comment on the possibility of considering a narrower amendment to the Bill to close that loophole. It seems extraordinary that workers can go on strike for one week, which is followed by a seven week lock-out, and then be fairly dismissed because of the original one-week strike. That is unacceptable, and there is certainly unanimity among the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Back Benchers tabling that new clause. I invite the Minister to respond specifically to that point.
      The new clause goes far beyond addressing that particular mischief, however; and to destroy the delicate balance created in the Employment Relations Act 1999 would be a retrograde step. Subject to this loophole being closed, it makes sense to have a protected period in which the right to strike exists, and to have a period after that date in which that right continues to exist if the employer does not go through the proper procedures. Throwing all that out would be throwing the baby out with the bath water and going way beyond addressing the mischief to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Central referred.
      I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in relation to urging the Government to consider the position of public services and to examine the possibility of introducing arbitration as an alternative to the right to strike which exists outside the core public services.
      New clause 8 seems to go back in the wrong direction and to be extreme on the other side. The delicate balance that was created by the 1999 Act appears to have worked reasonably successfully, notwithstanding unusual cases such as that of Friction Dynamics. It has not lead to an enormous growth of strikes. Strikes have increased of late, but there is no suggestion that that is because of the reasonable and limited protection that the 1999 Act provided in terms of the protected period. There is not a case for going back to the pre-1999 period; there is simply a case for addressing the mischief that has been highlighted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central.
      8.15pm
      Mr. Hammond: This has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is to be congratulated on having introduced his theme oozing reasonableness under the smokescreen of a specific case, the details of which I confess I do not have. Other hon. Members have also alluded to that case. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) have made the point that we cannot base such far-reaching legislative proposals on a single case. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central will just have to accept that we will never be able to deal with every situation in society that might give rise to a potential injustice.
      We must consider the background to the two new clauses. Legislation has followed legislation—including the Employment Relations Act 1999—since the Government came to power in 1997. Further employment
      148
      legislation is in the pipeline that will tilt the playing field still further in favour of the trade unions. The result of all this is an upsurge in trade union activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton quoted figures for the dramatic increase in recognition agreements. Mr. John Monks is on record as saying that the trade unions were back in business. Who would expect them to be anywhere else, when they have just paid the party that now forms the Government £9 million to fight their last general election campaign?
      Mr. Kevan Jones: In regard to trade union recognition, do not individual workers and members have to vote for that recognition? It is not the trade union bosses or the trade unions getting the recognition; it is individual workers demanding representation at work by trade unions.
      Mr. Hammond: All that we are talking about here is a change in the mood—a change in the tilt of the playing field—and a perception that there is now an agenda to concede some of the points that the trade unions have been arguing for a number of years. My perception is that industrial relations during the 1990s—let us not go back to the 1980s—had stabilised at a generally constructive level. Since 1997, we have had a Government who have been determined to tilt the situation in favour of the trade unions, making life more difficult for employers at a time when they are facing significant economic difficulties themselves.
      Part of the backdrop to these issues is that the trade unions are acting not as economic guardians of their members but as political pressure groups, apparently determined to wreck the Government's agenda of public sector reform—an agenda on which the Government were elected in 2001. There is a resurgence of militancy in the public sector unions threatening chaos across the public transport system. Many of our constituents in the south-east have to face that chaos, with the strikes by South West Trains. Other train companies face a similar situation in constituencies further north.
      Against that backdrop of a rise in union militancy and an increase in disputes that have less to do with employee-employer tensions than with internecine warfare and power struggles between different would-be trade union barons, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central wants to send a signal that we wish to move further away from the status quo that was working well during the last Parliament, and to move back to a situation that would be more akin to the 1970s if the hon. Gentleman's new clause were taken to its logical conclusion.
      Mark Tami: Did not the Conservative Government privatise the train system? We now have a vast number of companies, which encouraged the end of national bargaining and got rid of a lot of train drivers. The market is taking hold. Does not the hon. Gentleman support the market?
      Mr. Hammond: To be honest, I am not sure of the import of that intervention. The rail disputes are being presented as an old-fashioned disagreement about differentials between train drivers, who are in extremely

      149
      short supply and have to be paid good wages, and other workers, who are in less short supply. Inevitably, differentials are opening up.
      Mr. George Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister unreservedly condemns the strikes? Interestingly, Labour Back Benchers do not.
      Mr. Hammond: I suspect that there is a large gulf between the Prime Minister and some of his Back Benchers, some of whom may even support the wreckers, who the Prime Minister condemns regularly and vociferously.
      Rob Marris: My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) merely made the point that when the hon. Gentleman referred to the public sector he should have referred to public services. The railways are a public service, but they are not in the public sector. They were privatised by the Conservative Government.
      I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman what happened with a number of train operating companies, because he clearly does not understand. After being privatised, they laid off loads of train drivers, causing them to be in short supply, and there was leap-frogging between the privatised companies, which needed to hire drivers. Train drivers are in short supply because the companies caused them to be in short supply.
      Mr. Hammond: The disputes are not about train drivers. We all understand that drivers are extremely scarce, which is why they are cutting good deals with their employers. That is the marketplace working, and I have no problem at all with train drivers achieving good settlements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I have no problem at all with people who have valuable but scarce skills cutting good deals with their employers—that is bound to happen.
      The events in the railway industry are being presented as an old-fashioned differential dispute with people in a different labour market demanding that some magical differential between them and the more highly paid train drivers be maintained in the face of the market evidence.
      Mr. Lloyd rose—
      David Taylor rose—
      Mr. Hammond: Before I give way, let me point out that it is not too cynical to observe that the real issue behind the rail strikes plaguing this country has nothing to do with the pay and conditions of guards, but everything to do with the ambitions of different would-be union barons to control the RMT and its extended and improbable election process.
      Mr. Lloyd: I hope the hon. Gentleman will concede that his remarks are totally irrelevant to new clause 5. I can only assume that, as his new clause would remove any recourse to unfair dismissal procedures following industrial action, he wants employers to use the method of the sack to resolve industrial disputes.
      Mr. Hammond: To get to the point, new clause 5 would make it always unfair to dismiss a person who
      150
      breached his contract by striking. New clause 8 would return us to the pre-1999 Act position, which I submit worked very well. The hon. Gentleman said that dismissing a work force is unlikely to be a practical solution in an industrial dispute. Employers are not in the business of dismissing their work force, as their companies and livelihoods depend on them.
      To put it bluntly, we are talking about sending signals, and the hon. Gentleman wants to send a further signal that the playing field is tilting in favour of the trade union agenda. We are moving steadily and further down that line. His Government imposed a solution only two years ago, but the matter is to be reopened and pushed further in the direction of the TUC's long-standing agenda. New clause 8 would send the signal that, in the face of increasing militancy, increasing disruption of public services and increasing chaos for our constituents, we shall not return to the industrial relations chaos over which the Labour Government of the 1970s presided. We turn our back on that. New clause 8 sends the signal that we would return to the status quo of the late 1990s, which was workable and coherent.
      Mrs. Betty Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that the catalogue of events highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) shows the true picture and what happens on the ground with ridiculous employment practices that take us back to the 19th century? Will the hon. Gentleman please agree with us on that point? We have an opportunity to put things right.
      Mr. Hammond: It would be wrong to comment on the individual case, because I do not know the facts, and I certainly do not know the broader facts surrounding it. I hear what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central have to say. On the facts presented by the hon. Gentleman, I agree that we have not heard about a model employer and his conduct towards his employees, but I tell the hon. Lady that if we in this place set ourselves the task of framing legislation that makes every injustice and every bad practice impossible, we shall fail.
      The hon. Gentleman's solution—making it always unfair to dismiss a person who breaches his contract by going on strike and refusing to work for his employer as he is contracted to do—is totally disproportionate. He has not adduced a single example of the benefits of his new clause, other than in respect of the case from north Wales. He is sending a signal that must be examined in the context of where we are at this point: the Government, who are relatively newly elected, have a mandate to bring the public sector trade unions to heel and to deliver reform of public services that they have publicly rejected. That was always going to be a tough task for a Government who got themselves elected by taking £9 million of union money.
      We face increasing chaos in our public transport system and the threat of a Post Office strike that will bring what remains of our postal services to their knees. I suspect that Consignia will never be able to recover, thus precipitating the collapse of postal services and the post office network which the hon. Gentleman predicted from the other side of the barricade in 1994.
      That is the background and that is the situation: the Government are introducing Bill after Bill and moving in the direction of the trade union agenda. We are all aware

      151
      that there is more in the pipeline—legislation from Brussels and from the Government's own agenda. In response to that, the hon. Gentleman wants to send the signal that the Government are not going far enough and not going fast enough: "We'd like more, please."
      The hon. Gentleman cited one case in defence of his argument that we should make it always unfair to dismiss someone who is on strike, breaching his contract with his employer. There are two points of principle here. Yes, a person has a right to go on strike, but, equally, an employer must have a right to dismiss a person who has broken his contract and has decided to go on strike rather than working as he is contracted to do. Of course employers will not usually resort to that, because it would be absurd and would not be in their interests to do so, and of course employees and trade unions will not usually resort to strike action in pursuance of disputes and discussions with employers. We are talking about extreme cases.
      8.30 pm
      The new clause has been presented as framing a point of principle. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, who asked me about the eight-week rule, that I could not defend that as a point of principle. When a point of principle is involved, it should be argued either that it is always unfair to dismiss a striker—that is the hon. Gentleman's argument—or that once a contract of employment has been broken, it is fair to dismiss the person who has broken the contract. No argument can be made in principle for the eight-week rule.
      Norman Lamb: I agree that the extreme view that it is never lawful to dismiss people on strike, however long the strike and whatever the circumstances, is unacceptable and that a balance needs to be struck between the competing rights of the parties. But is it not also wrong to go to the extreme that the hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing? Is he really saying that it is reasonable for a group of workers who go on strike lawfully for one day to be sacked with no recourse against their employer through tribunals?
      Mr. Hammond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leap up to correct me, but as far as I know, until the 1999 Act came into force we were not plagued by outrageous dismissals of work forces who had been on strike for one day. That simply did not happen, for all sorts of practical reasons.
      I suspect that neither new clause 5 nor new clause 8 would make a huge practical difference to disputes on the ground. Our aim is to send a signal about climate, mood, balance, and the direction in which the Government are travelling. I am astonished that, in the 21st century, such issues still appear to be at the forefront of some people's agenda. I should have thought that most trade unions—let me qualify that and say "most trade unions in the private sector", which brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—had long since adopted a much more constructive approach to achieving what was best for them. It staggers me that, in the 21st century, it should still be thought that conferring the ability to strike indefinitely without being dismissed fairly is the way to pursue the interests of workers—employees and trade unionists. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Manchester, Central and his co-signatories fall within the Prime Minister's definition of "wreckers".
      152
      Whether or not new clause 5 is pressed to a Division, I hope that the House will divide on new clause 8.
      Alan Johnson: The new clauses concern the protections against dismissal for those taking the protective industrial action introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. New clause 5 seeks to extend the protections, while new clause 8 seeks to remove them. The Government consider both unacceptable.
      New clause 5 aims to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to ensure that it is automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for taking part in protective industrial action at any time, whether during or after that action. The Employment Relations Act 1999 significantly strengthened the protections against dismissal for those taking lawfully organised official industrial action. It made it automatically unfair for an employer to sack employees for taking part in industrial action, either within the first eight weeks of the beginning of the action or after that, if it ended within the eight weeks. Most industrial action is short-lived; the rules therefore protect employees in the overwhelming majority of cases involving industrial action.
      The 1999 Act also makes it unlawful to sack employees for taking industrial action after it has continued for more than eight weeks where the employer has not taken reasonable steps to resolve the disputes. "Reasonable steps" include the following of disputes procedures and the involvement of third-party conciliation or mediation. That is an important part of the Act.
      It is important to recognise that the Act did not amend some dreadful piece of employment law legislation introduced under the Thatcher regime. For students of these matters, it is the 101st anniversary of Taff Vale, another Welsh dispute. Since then, it has always been the case that workers could be sacked from day one of an industrial dispute. In 1999, we provided protection for the first time for eight weeks, and beyond that if no attempt had been made to resolve the disputes.
      The Government believe that those changes represented a major advance in protecting individuals who exercised their fundamental freedom to withdraw their labour. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) says that these things did not occur before. Conservative Members are so wrong about this it almost hurts. One reason why they were swept out of power in 1997 and lost again by a landslide last year is that they refuse to understand the difficulties of people at work and continue to be hostile to free, independent trade unionism. I find it reassuring to know that that gap is still there. [Interruption.] "Absolute rubbish", say Conservative Members from a sedentary position. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the solution to the RMT dispute—and no one was more disappointed than Conservative Members when the dispute this week was called off—was to sack the workers from day one. The Leader of the Opposition said on television and is quoted as saying in print that one of the dreadful things that the Government have done was to introduce protection for eight weeks. That must mean that the solution to these industrial problems, according to the right hon. Gentleman—the human resources manager from hell—would be to sack the work force from day one.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says that this was not the case before the 1999 Act was introduced. It was—these things happened all the time.

      153
      I can think of several high-profile disputes in which such things happened. Indeed, I was involved in a low-profile dispute at Critchley Labels in south Wales. It had a work force of 36, 99 per cent. of whom were unionised. Job numbers had to be reduced, to which the union agreed. Management decided that the four people to lose their job were the branch chairman, the branch secretary, the treasurer and the committee member of the local union. The work force took balloted industrial action to protect those four people who were disgracefully earmarked for dismissal. The management then derecognised the union. The work force had a 100 per cent. yes vote for industrial action and were all promptly dismissed on day one of that industrial action.
      Conservative Members need to carry forward Letwinisation and understand that what we did in 1999 helped to resolve such disputes. Union recognition did not have to be fought on the picket lines and in the trenches. People who wanted their union to be recognised and were prepared to take official, legal, balloted industrial action for that to happen were no longer forced to go through a recognition procedure that involved a dispute. Instead, they had a sensible procedure to follow.
      Conservative Members seem to find it disgraceful and disappointing that unions are picking up members again. I suppose that it is ironic. Who would have thought, 10 or 15 years ago, that at the beginning of the 21st century the trade union movement would be in a better position than the Conservative party? I understand Conservatives' disappointment in that respect. It should not be a matter for disappointment that people can follow a properly regulated procedure under which they vote to have their unions recognised and avoid the kind of dispute that we had at Critchley Labels.
      Mr. Hammond: Before the Minister gets too excited about the increase in trade union membership, will he confirm that union penetration in the private sector is 19 per cent. and in the public sector, 63 per cent.?
      Alan Johnson: I try not to get excited about these issues. I am merely pointing out that the trade union movement in this country has increased its membership. There have been more recognition deals, including at Honda. Conservative Members seem to view that as the collapse of civilisation as we know it.
      As for how such disputes begin, the Employment Relations Act sorted out the problem with union recognition. It also solved the problem caused by the fact that, having held their ballot and got a mandate, union members had to take industrial action within 28 days or the mandate would be lost and they would have to reballot.
      That was sensible, and I hope that it may be the solution to the dispute currently predicted at Consignia. These days, if both sides are in constructive discussions they can agree to decide that there is no need for the union to be put in the ridiculous position of having to take industrial action—albeit token action—to keep its mandate. The mandate can be extended by another 28 days so that there is a chance of resolving the dispute through arbitration. That is another of the sensible solutions introduced in the 1999 Act that has helped to resolve disputes.
      Mr. George Osborne: I seem to remember that when the Minister was a union leader, he found it more useful
      154
      to employ Lowe Bell than to take his members out on strike—but that is another matter. [Interruption.] Apparently he did both. So that I know where he stands in the spectrum of Labour party opinion on the dispute at South West Trains, will he tell me whether he joins the Prime Minister in unreservedly condemning the strike? Yes or no?
      Alan Johnson: I am not interested in that sort of silly question. I am dealing with what I thought was an important debate on how employment relations are to go forward in this country. I was shunted into a siding for a second, but let me come back to new clause 5, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).
      The changes to the 1992 Act that came into effect on 24 April 2000—they have now been in place for about 22 months—were an important step forward. I am making that point—and I know that my hon. Friends agree with me—because some of the criticism that we have received implies that we did something terrible to undermine trade union rights and the rights of workers in dispute when we introduced those measures in the 1999 Act.
      There is no evidence that employers are increasingly trying to sack strikers; they have not taken the advice of the Leader of the Opposition yet. In fact, sackings and threats of sackings are rare. However, I have listened to the debate and I recognise that the new clause has direct relevance to the dispute at Friction Dynamics in Caernarfon. That case has caused much distress to the workers concerned and to their local communities in north Wales. I am probably one of only three people in the Chamber who have met the striking workers at Friction Dynamics, and I have received many representations on their behalf. I know and understand their plight.
      Some of the sacked workers have made applications to an employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. The first of those cases will probably be heard soon. The Friction Dynamics example is the first known to Government in which sacked strikers have invoked the new law and taken an employer to a tribunal. Obviously the outcome will be instructive, but we will not know the result for some time.
      One of the questions asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) was whether the lock-out that has turned into an eight-week strike was allowable under the 1999 Act. In our view it probably is not—but I understand that that is exactly what the employment tribunal is considering.
      Norman Lamb: Will the Minister give way?
      Alan Johnson: In a little while.
      I believe it would not be right to amend the legislation on the basis of one case, in advance of a considered approach to any changes after full consultation with all interested parties. The Government believe that it would be wrong to use the Bill to change the law in that area on the basis of one unresolved dispute. It would be much better to address the issue in the round in the forthcoming review of the Employment Relations Act.
      Does the hon. Member for North Norfolk want to intervene now?
      Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me now, but I think that he has already answered my

      155
      question. I wanted to ask him whether he would seriously examine the outcome of the tribunal case and consider a possible narrow amendment, if necessary, to address the mischief that appears to have arisen in this case.
      Alan Johnson: The House will know that we are committed to reviewing the whole of the Employment Relations Act 1999 including the provision discussed in new clause 5.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: It is very important that my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House how the proposal will work in practice. I do not expect him to anticipate the results of the review, but he has made it clear that there is a commitment to making the eight-week rule workable and practical. Obviously, other matters—including the question concerning lock-out raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—will have to be considered in the review of the 1999 Act.
      Alan Johnson: Yes, we are committed to reviewing the whole of that Act. The review will include an examination of the law on the dismissal of strikers. We are committed to introducing any resulting legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament.
      I understand the concerns felt by hon. Members on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) has raised the matter with me several times, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. However, I think that it best to channel such concerns through the imminent review of the 1999 Act, not least because new clause 5, if it were agreed tonight, would do nothing to resolve the dispute at Friction Dynamics. No such provision could be applied retrospectively, as the members of the work force understood completely when I spoke to them a couple of months ago. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to withdraw the amendment.
      I turn now to new clause 8, which I believe would turn the clock back. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was blatant about that. As with so many things, the new clause shows the inability of the Conservative Members to adapt to change. The world of industrial relations has moved on, and has apparently left them behind
      New clause 8 would repeal all the additional protections for those taking official, lawfully organised industrial action which were introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. It would take us back to the law that preceded it, under which there were only modest protections against dismissal for strikers.
      It is also important to recall that, under the previous law, tribunals could not hear complaints from workers dismissed during a strike if all of them were dismissed. They could hear complaints from strikers only if they were dismissed selectively, or were offered re-engagement selectively, within three months. Even then the strikers might not win their case. Such workers could not even take their case to an employment tribunal. That is the law that Conservative Members want to reintroduce
      The protections remain in place for those dismissed during action that is not lawfully organised, but we recognise that they were incongruous in relation to
      156
      lawfully organised, balloted industrial action. They gave completely free rein to employers to sack everyone taking industrial action. So if 100 people were taking action, it was completely lawful for the employer to sack them, as long as he dismissed all 100.
      We therefore changed the law with the 1999 Act to give important extra protections to everyone taking lawful industrial action—that is, official action that has been organised in full accordance with the law. Once unions have met the many demands of the law when organising action, we believe that their members should enjoy a measure of protection when they take such action.
      The new law has been in place for a little under two years. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wishes to imply that there has been a significant upturn in industrial action as a result. That is simply not the case. In fact, it is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence that the number of stoppages has increased since our legal changes took effect. The number of stoppages in the year to November 2001 was just 190—the lowest since records began in 1869. That total was 20 fewer than in the preceding year—
      Mr. Hammond rose—
      Alan Johnson: I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask what has happened since November, but I assure him that I shall get around to that in a second.
      The number of stoppages in the year to November 2001 was 20 fewer than in the preceding year, and 40 fewer than the average annual figure for the 1990s, up to 1997.
      Mr. Hammond: Like the members of his Whips' Office, the Minister has wrongly anticipated my intervention. I was going to ask him whether it had occurred to him that 2001 was a general election year. The trade unions financing the Labour party's campaign were hardly likely to pull the rug from under the party's feet by going in for a massive increase in industrial disputes in the run-up to the general election.
      Alan Johnson: I feel the need to take the hon. Gentleman, whom I very much like, out for a gin and tonic, and sit him down and go through all of this. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps I will stretch to a half of lager. I have not heard this stuff about a huge conspiracy for some time. He should have talked to my mob half way through the election, because they were coming out quite merrily. The idea that industrial action just disappears when we snap our fingers and hold a general election has me holding my sides.
      Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
      Alan Johnson: I can take a bit more entertainment, so yes.
      Mr. Hammond: Frankly, I find it astonishing that the Minister is suggesting that the trade union movement, which supports the Labour party financially and morally, would not attempt in the run-up to a general election to avoid any action or any questioning of Government policy, however violently it might disagree with it, until after the election was over. Is not that precisely what we

      157
      have seen: utter silence in the run-up to the general election and then an immediate exercise of the unions' veto over public policy once Labour is in office?
      Alan Johnson: I ought to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the majority of the unions affiliated to the TUC are not affiliated to the Labour party. In terms of the figures, he just cannot get away with it. In the last year to November, a year in which there was a general election, we had the lowest level of industrial action since records began. This year, even with the regrettable and high-profile disputes that we have seen—incidentally, they are high profile because there are no disputes anywhere else—we will have the second lowest level of industrial action since records began.
      The number of days lost to industrial action is minuscule by historical standards. In the twelve months to November 2001, an estimated 473,000 days were lost due to industrial action. This compares with 1.3 million days lost in 1996; not the 1980s.
      Mr. George Osborne: The Minister had something to do with that.
      Alan Johnson: I fully accept that, in another capacity, I had something to do with that. But Opposition Members are suggesting that the problems of industrial disputes and industrial action lie with the Government. In that case, what do they say about the 1.3 million days lost in 1996? In the 1980s, the annual average was 7.3 million days lost each year—a decade in which the Conservative party ruled entirely. I shall emphasise those figures: 7.3 million days lost on average each year in the 1980s compared with 473,000 under this Government. And we are told that we are having some kind of 1970s revival night.
      Mr. Prisk: I will allow the Minister to calm down gently. Does he expect that, over the next quarter, the number of strike days will rise or fall?
      Alan Johnson: With the measures taken since the Employment Relations Act 1999, we have everything in place to deal with disputes in the proper way, either through arbitration—
      Mr. Prisk: Will it go up or down?
      Alan Johnson: We certainly have a better way of dealing with disputes now, whether they are about union recognition or anything else, than we had prior to the measures that were introduced in 1999. If the new clause were accepted, it would do nothing to meet the problems that we have seen in industry over the last few months.
      There is no case for repealing this law. It has not created a new wave of industrial militancy. Instead, it underpins a basic freedom: the freedom: to take industrial action, which is part of a mature democracy. The law is balanced and provides real incentives for both parties to resolve their differences. Opposition Members obviously do not value such provisions. In place of negotiation, they presumably favour heavy-handed tactics, with employers sacking anyone who takes action.
      158
      New clause 8 is a desperate attempt by Opposition Members to resurrect "Back to the Future". As always, they attack not just trade unions, but their members. The new clause has no place in this Bill and we will have no reservations about opposing it if they have the temerity to push it to the vote.
      Mr. Lloyd: This has been a fascinating debate, partly because of the illusions and myths about the reality of industrial relations that have been mentioned. Although the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) makes a good point about the lock-out, I ask him to reflect seriously on the fact that all the protection that exists, even now, is that the sacked worker can go to a tribunal. An employer could show that the sacking was fair, even during the strike, if other factors were relevant. So the new clause is no strikers' charter. The most important point—this has totally escaped Conservative Members—is that we are talking not about a massive trade union agenda, but about a rare set of events. I suggest that they grow up a little, please. The Friction Dynamics dispute is the only one that I am aware of since the Employment Relations Act 1999, but it matters to the people in that company.
      It is obvious that Conservative Members wanted to adopt a different agenda. They wanted to talk up the concept of industrial strife, not because they have any interest in industrial justice or industrial peace, but because they want to talk about what they regard as tough Tory politics. My hon. Friend the Minister hit the nail firmly on the head many times in exposing them for what they are. The very idea suggested in new clause 8, under which day-one sackings are proposed as the solution to industrial disputes in this country, is ludicrous and childish. That is why it will not gain the sympathy of the House.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises the strength of feeling behind the Friction Dynamics dispute and the more general issue. The dispute has not merely popped up in recent days; it is now in its 44th week. People are enormously troubled that the legal balance is not right. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the review of the law will take account of the process. On that basis, it is genuinely in the interests of the House not to vote on new clause 5, but to vote against new clause 8, proposed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and I very much look forward to voting in the opposite Lobby to the one in which he votes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      REPEAL OF SECTION 109 OF THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996
      '.—Section 109 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (Upper age limit) is hereby repealed.'.—[Hywel Williams.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Hywel Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of new clause 7 is to remove the age limit on protection against unfair dismissal, so that an employee over the age of 65 would have the same protection as any other employee. Under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee has a right not to be

      159
      dismissed unfairly. However, under section 109 of that Act, that protection does not apply to the dismissal of an employee who has attained the retirement age for an undertaking and the age was the same whether the employee was a man or a woman or, in any other case, the employee had attained the age of 65.
      Under new clause 7, that existing age limit on protection against unfair dismissal would be removed. That would ensure that an older person could claim unfair dismissal, just like any other employee. It would also bring that right into line with a great many other employment rights that are not subject to an upper age limit—for example, the right to paid leave and a minimum wage. That right would be consistent with the right to claim unfair dismissal for specified reasons that are automatically regarded as unfair, such as trade union membership.
      9 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The Opposition have a great deal of sympathy with the principles behind the hon. Gentleman's new clause. However, we do not feel that it is right to legislate on this matter in isolation. A much wider issue must be addressed. We look forward to a constructive discussion on how to protect the rights of older workers in the work force when the consultation in which the Government are engaged is discussed in this place.
      Question put and negatived.
      It being after Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [27 November 2001]

    New Clause 8

      DISMISSAL AND PARTICIPATION IN INDUSTRIAL ACTION
      '(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
      (2) Subsection (2B) of section 238 (dismissals in connection with other industrial action) shall cease to have effect.
      (3) Section 238A (participation in official industrial action) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 342.

      Division No. 166]

      [9.1 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Butterfill, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cameron, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Barker, Gregory

      Baron, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Beggs, Roy

      Clappison, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bercow, John

      Collins, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cran, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Burns, Simon

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Burnside, David

      Evans, Nigel

      160

      Fallon, Michael

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Page, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Garnier, Edward

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Prisk, Mark

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hammond, Philip

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hayes, John

      Selous, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hendry, Charles

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hermon, Lady

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hoban, Mark

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Spink, Bob

      Horam, John

      Spring, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Swire, Hugo

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Syms, Robert

      Key, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tredinnick, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Trend, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Viggers, Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Walter, Robert

      Loughton, Tim

      Watkinson, Angela

      Luff, Peter

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wiggin, Bill

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mates, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Yeo, Tim

      Mercer, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Norman, Archie

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Mr. Laurence Robertson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Borrow, David

      Allan, Richard

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Brake, Tom

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Browne, Desmond

      Austin, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Bailey, Adrian

      Burnham, Andy

      Baird, Vera

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Banks, Tony

      Cairns, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Carton, Mrs Patsy

      Barrett, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Caton, Martin

      Benn, Hilary

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew

      Challen, Colin

      Best, Harold

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Betts, Clive

      Chaytor, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Chidgey, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clapham, Michael

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      161

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Havard, Dai

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heath, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hesford, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Connarty, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Corston, Jean

      Holmes, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Hope, Phil

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cummings, John

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      David, Wayne

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Doughty, Sue

      Joyce, Eric

      Dowd, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kidney, David

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lamb, Norman

      Flynn, Paul

      Lammy, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Galloway, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Love, Andrew

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lucas, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Luke, Iain

      Goggins, Paul

      Lyons, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Grogan, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McDonnell, John

      Hancock, Mike

      MacDougall, John

      Hanson, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      162

      McKechin, Ann

      Salter, Martin

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McNulty, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacShane, Denis

      Sawford, Phil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWalter, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McWilliam, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Singh, Marsha

      Mann, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marris, Rob

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Merron, Gillian

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Southworth, Helen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Squire, Rachel

      Miliband, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mole, Chris

      Stevenson, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moore, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Margaret

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morgan, Julie

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mullin, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Tami, Mark

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Hara Edward

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Owen Albert

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thurso, John

      Pike, Peter

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pond, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Price, Adam

      Twigg, Stephen (EnField)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tyler, Paul

      Pugh, Dr John

      Tynan, Bill

      Purchase, Ken

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purnell, James

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watson, Tom

      Rammell, Bill

      Watts, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Webb, Steve

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Weir, Michael

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      White, Brian

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rendel, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Ruane, Chris

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wishart, Pete

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wood, Mike

      Ryan, Joan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Salmond, Alex

      Woolas, Phil

      163

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Mr. Fraser Kemp.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      PATERNITY LEAVE
      Amendments made: No. 37, in page 2, line 17, leave out—
      'a single period of leave of.
      No. 38, in page 2, line 17, leave out "weeks" and insert "weeks" leave".
      No. 39, in page 2, line 27, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      (c) make provision about how leave under this section may be taken.'.
      No. 40, in page 3, line 12, leave out—
      'a single period of leave of.
      No. 41, in page 3, line 12, leave out—"weeks" and insert "weeks" leave".
      No. 42, in page 3, line 26, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
      '(d) make provision about how leave under this section may be taken.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Clause 2

      STATUTORY PATERNITY PAY
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 7, line 5, after "pay" insert—
      'in respect of any period'.
      No. 44, in page 8, line 20, leave out from "choose" to "as" in line 22 and insert—
      to receive statutory paternity pay in respect of—

      (i) a period of a week, or

      (ii) two non-consecutive periods of a week,

      such week or weeks within the qualifying period'.
      No. 45, in page 8, line 24, leave out "is the" and insert—
      'shall be determined in accordance with regulations, which shall secure that it is a'.
      No. 46, in page 8, line 25, after "of' insert "at least"—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Clause 24

      CONCILIATION
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 33, line 38, at end insert "and".
      No. 17, in page 33, leave out lines 39 to 43.
      No. 18, in page 33, line 46, at end insert—
      '(4) In that section, the existing provision (as amended by subsection (3)) becomes subsection (1) and at the end there is inserted—
      "(2) If employment tribunal procedure regulations include provision postponing the fixing of a time and place for a hearing for the purpose of giving an opportunity for the proceedings to be settled by way of conciliation and withdrawn, they shall also include provision for the parties to proceedings to which the provision for
      164
      postponement applies to be notified that the services of a conciliation officer may no longer be available to them after the end of the postponement."'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Clause 32

      CONSEQUENTIAL ADJUSTMENT OF TIME LIMITS
      Amendment made: No. 47, in page 37, line 10, after "3" insert—
      or [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section [Complaints about grievances] applies]'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Clause 33
      NON-COMPLETION OF STATUTORY PROCEDURE: EXCLUSION OF CLAIMS
      Amendment made: No. 48, in page 37, line 20, leave out Clause 33.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    Clause 34

      PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN UNFAIR DISMISSAL
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 37, line 39, at end insert—
      '() one of the procedures set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002 (dismissal and disciplinary procedures) applies in relation to the dismissal,'.
      No. 20, in page 37, line 40, leave out "relevant statutory".
      No. 21, in page 38, line 1, leave out "that" and insert "the".
      No. 22, in page 38, line 9, after "to" insert—
      'the application of a procedure set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002,'.
      No. 23, in page 38, line 9, leave out "the relevant statutory" and insert "such a".
      No. 24, in page 38, line 10, leave out "its" and insert "the".
      No. 25, in page 38, line 10, at end insert "of such a procedure".
      No. 26, in page 38, line 11, leave out "the Employment" and insert "that".
      No. 27, in page 38, line 12, leave out "2002".
      No. 28, in page 38" leave out lines 13 to 19.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Clause 51

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 58, line 5, leave out "33" and insert—
      '[Complaints about grievances]'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    New Schedule 1

      TRIBUNAL JURISDICTIONS TO WHICH SECTION [Complaints about grievances] APPLIES—
      Section 2 of the Equal Pay Act 1970 (c. 41) (equality clauses)
      Section 63 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65) (discrimination in the employment field)
      Section 54 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (discrimination in the employment field)
      Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) (detriment in relation to trade union membership and activities)
      Paragraph 156 of Schedule Al to that Act (detriment in relation to union recognition rights)
      Section 8 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (discrimination in the employment field)
      Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (unauthorised deductions and payments)
      Section 48 of that Act (detriment in employment)
      Section 111 of that Act (unfair dismissal)
      Section 163 of that Act (redundancy payments)
      Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) (detriment in relation to national minimum wage)
      Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999 (c. 10) (detriment in relation to tax credits)
      The Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1623) (breach of employment contract and termination)
      The Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1624) (corresponding provision for Scotland)
      Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) (breach of regulations)
      Regulation 32 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/3323) (detriment relating to European Works Councils)'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 3
      TRIBUNAL JURISDICTIONS TO WHICH SECTION 31 APPLIES
      Amendment made: No. 49, in page 65, line 29, leave out "Part 8" and insert "Paragraph 156".—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    Schedule 4
      TRIBUNAL JURISDICTIONS TO WHICH SECTION 38 APPLIES
      Amendment made: No. 50, in page 66, line 22, leave out "Part 8" and insert "Paragraph 156".—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    Schedule 6

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 76, line 2, at end insert—
      29A In section 98 (fairness of dismissal: general), in subsection (6)—

      (a) for "are" there is substituted "is", and

      (b) in paragraph (a), for "99" there is substituted "98A".'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      9.16 pm
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I thank hon. Members for their important contributions to debate on the Bill, not only on Report, but on Second Reading and in Committee. Those who have participated have done so constructively and with great good humour, and they have provided thorough and helpful scrutiny of the Bill's provisions.
      166
      The Bill is an important one, touching on many aspects of people's work and family lives. It represents a balanced package, providing new rights and responsibilities for employers and employees alike. The Bill introduces new rights that will ensure that parents are able to spend time with their children when it is most valuable, while they are young—the children, that is, not the parents. We are for the first time introducing statutory paternity and adoption leave, and a requirement that businesses seriously consider requests for flexible working.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: On the issue of paternity and adoption leave, my hon. Friend will recall that in Committee I tabled probing amendments in respect of those who would not be eligible because their earnings were below the lower limit. He informed the Committee that the Department for Work and Pensions was thinking of redressing that problem to coincide with other provisions, and in correspondence the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has informed me that the Department intends to make regulations to deal with that.
      None the less, I should like to ask my hon. Friend to ensure, with his colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions, that when those regulations are introduced there is no gap. Normally, benefits are paid after the event, because one has to claim them when one is in the given situation. We need to be sure that people are able to get the top-up income support at the time that they need it, not a couple of weeks after.
      Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raised that issue in Committee. There was general consensus on the need to do something about it, and I have been considering it in some detail with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions. I am delighted to say that we have now agreed that the income support regulations will be amended to enable fathers who are entitled to paternity leave but who do not receive statutory paternity pay to claim income support. In addition, parents who receive paternity pay but who are normally low paid will also be able to top up their income with income support.
      Those changes will ensure that household income does not fall below a certain guaranteed minimum, currently about £130 a week for a couple with one child where the father takes paternity leave. That will provide a degree of financial security sufficient to ensure that all low-paid employees have the opportunity to take up their statutory right to paternity leave. Regulations will be made later in the year, to coincide with the introduction of the new paternity rights. I thought it would be helpful, in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), to confirm that to the House today.
      Mr. Hammond: As we did not reach amendment No. 6, will the Minister confirm also that self-employed people on low pay would be included within the arrangements that he has outlined to the House?
      Alan Johnson: I cannot confirm that. That is a completely different problem. As I explained in Committee, that point applies to a group of people whom we would have to place in an expensive and bureaucratic new system. That would be necessary to meet the same provisions. However, we undertook to consider that as part of the employee-worker review, which I confirmed earlier will be taking place in late spring.

      167
      The Government are extending maternity leave and simplifying the rules governing maternity leave and pay. Following extensive consultation with a wide range of interest groups, we have designed the new paternity and adoption rights to mirror the simplified maternity provisions. Business representatives asked for that in their responses to our consultation, and we listened to them. These are changes that benefit society as a whole. The new and improved rights will make it easier for parents to make choices about how they balance their work and family lives.
      Removing pressures will encourage employee commitment, motivation and productivity. Many companies already recognise this and use such benefits to employees as an essential part of running a successful and productive business. These measures have been welcomed by business and employees' representatives alike.
      Equally, the involvement of partners of people receiving working-age benefits in work-focused interviews will increase participation in the work force and bring other benefits to society and, therefore, ultimately to the economy.
      The second substantial area covered by the Bill is dispute resolution. A wide range of provisions will introduce new ways of handling disputes in the workplace, and will help deliver modern, competitive workplaces in Britain through better awareness of rights and more and better communication within organisations.
      Ms Walley: Given that we did not reach the amendments that relate to the statutory modified disciplinary procedure, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will give further consideration to the amendments which were tabled but not called before they go to another place? There are now only two steps in dismissal cases, and there has not been the opportunity for anyone to conduct a proper investigation. Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to those matters?
      Alan Johnson: As always, we shall keep those issues under review, especially as the Bill goes to the other place. We think that there are clear reasons why the modified two-step procedure is necessary, not least to ensure that those who have been involved in violence and serious cases where there has been discrimination and harassment do not have to discuss the issue. There is the right of appeal. That is why the modified procedure is in place for gross misconduct.
      As I have said, the second substantial area is dispute resolution. The Bill represents a real opportunity to change the way in which workplace disputes are managed by putting communication before litigation. It will ensure a modern user-focused tribunal system that will provide swift and efficient justice. The idea that grievance and discipline procedures should be used in the workplace is neither new nor innovative. The introduction of statutory minimum standards will mean that about 3 million employees who do not currently have any procedures available to them in their workplace, and a further 3 million who have substandard procedures, will in future have a right to a basic but crucial first course of action should a problem arise.
      There are many other provisions in the Bill. The introduction of an equal pay questionnaire will enable the facts of a case to be established early. It will encourage
      168
      the collection of evidence and the settlement of cases before they proceed to tribunal. The absence of transparency on pay information contributes to and perpetuates the gender pay gap. The Government are determined to eliminate pay discrimination, and the questionnaire provision is one step towards that goal.
      Another long-standing problem in the workplace is the provision of training at all levels. The Bill introduces the right to time off for union learning representatives. This will ensure that vulnerable groups of workers, such as older men, people from ethnic minorities and part-timers, who currently all too often miss out on training and development opportunities, will be given support and encouragement from their representatives, who are adept at reaching precisely those groups.
      The provisions on fixed-term employees are equally important. We are ensuring that people on fixed-term contracts cannot be treated less favourably than their colleagues on permanent contracts. We are outlawing the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts. All those measures contribute to the new framework of basic minimum employment rights in a flexible labour market, which the Government are committed to establishing.
      Let us not lose sight of the bigger picture. The Bill is well rounded and balanced, and has been introduced after extensive, in-depth consultation with all the stakeholders. It will allow employees some control over their working lives when they have small children, and will lead to better dialogue in the workplace over working patterns when disputes arise. Such dialogue and an increased use of an open partnership-based approach at work will make employees more motivated and businesses more productive. An increase in productivity is the way to make this country more competitive, which is why the Bill is important and why I commend it to the House.
      9.25 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I, too, congratulate all hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading and subsequently served on what was a constructive Committee.

      This is a Bill of parts, which do not always hang together. It is therefore convenient to deal with them separately in the order in which the Committee considered them. Parts 2 and 3 deal with procedures for grievances and discipline. We generally welcome the Government's attempt to reduce the burden on tribunals caused by cases that should be dealt with in the workplace. We welcome measures aimed at encouraging and increasing the use of workplace dispute resolution measures. We regret the fact that some of the Government's earlier ideas have been watered down along the way, and it remains to be seen whether the Bill will deliver effectively the Government's stated objective of resolving a significantly greater proportion of disputes in the workplace and imposing a significantly reduced work load on tribunals.
      Two issues remain unresolved: the resourcing of the tribunal system, which we touched on earlier, and the rather difficult relationship between the Government and the president of employment tribunals. Members of the Committee have seen the robust correspondence between the president and the Minister, which hardly bodes well for the future of employment tribunals. Generally, however, we welcome the Government's approach, although we regret the fact that they have backed down on a number of issues. We shall watch carefully to see whether their intended results are delivered.

      169
      Part 1 introduces a raft of new rights, to which the Minister referred. The Minister described them as new individual rights given to workers. However, throughout proceedings on the Bill, I have thought of them not so much individual rights granted for the benefit of individual workers but as rights granted for the better functioning of society, which will support families and ensure that children are brought up properly. In that context, I can certainly relate to the Bill, which will have tangible benefits for society. However, it is important to realize—the Minister will agree that this has been the theme throughout proceedings on the Bill—that we are not giving people time off for their own benefit; we are doing so for the benefit of their families. We are not giving adopters time off for their benefit; we are doing so in order that they can bond with the children they are adopting.
      That is a sensible approach, and deserves great support. However, we are concerned, both about the burden of costs and the incidence of costs in connection with the benefits resulting from provisions in part 1. The simple fact is that business, particularly manufacturing, is groaning under the weight of regulations, taxes, new legislation, an overvalued exchange rate and foreign competition. This is not the right time to impose further burdens on business; they will damage competitiveness, reduce flexibility and ultimately affect the ability to invest and deliver jobs.
      Our plea throughout, and the purpose of our new clauses on the subject today, was to ensure that there was a mature debate about the costs and the benefits that will arise from part 1—there are certainly benefits, as well as costs—the incidence of those benefits and costs, and who, in fairness, should meet those costs. Unfortunately, we have not persuaded the Government to move very far. Although there will undoubtedly be benefits for society and probably for some individual employees, there will be disbenefits for others, and the cost will, by and large, be borne by business. We very much regret that during consideration of the Bill we have not persuaded the Government to move much on that issue.
      I was disappointed by the Minister's response to my earlier intervention. I had hoped that he would find a way to include low paid self-employed people in the arrangements for statutory paternity pay, so that they too could benefit from the good that we are delivering, in the same way as low-paid mothers benefit from statutory maternity allowance.
      Part 4 is the ragbag that collects all the other bits and pieces. In this part of the Bill especially, we see the agenda of the trade unions. Clause 43 introduces on a statutory basis union learning representatives, with a right to paid time off for union activities. We are the first to recognise that union learning reps have played and do play a significant and constructive role in some workplaces, though apparently not in the Department for Education and Skills, where there is none.
      Ministers have been at great pains to tell us throughout the Bill that the introduction of learning reps on a statutory basis will be to the benefit of employers, but the statistics suggest that the largest employer in the country—the Government—as not taken heed of its own
      170
      advice to any significant extent. One cannot take best practice where it is working well and impose it across th e board by legislation.
      In a workplace where industrial relations are not harmonious and functioning properly, one cannot introduce by legislation the role of trade union learning reps in the way that that works in the best workplaces, where unions and employers are both committed. It is a matter for education, not for legislation. We believe that by introducing union learning reps as a statutory right, the Government have gone down the wrong route in seeking to impose across the board a practice that will not work in many cases, and in other cases will damage the good work that is going on between employers and their workers.
      Clause 45, which deals with fixed-term working, gold-plates the EU directive, as unions have urged the Government to do and Conservative Members have urged them not to do. We are concerned that there is still a residual hostility to non-conventional work patterns. I emphasise our support for measures that eliminate abusive practice. The Minister mentioned artificial sequential fixed-term contracts. We entirely support the Government's intention to remove that abusive practice.
      Our new clause, which unfortunately we did not reach in the timetabled debate, would have exempted from the provisions of clause 45 cases where the employer had offered the worker a permanent employment contract on the same terms as other people in that workplace doing similar work, but the employee had rejected the offer. The purpose of the new clause was to draw the Government's attention to the fact that, although there may be abuses at the bottom end of the employment curve, at the top end there are many people working on fixed-term contracts whose employers would love to get them on permanent long-term contracts, but are unable to do so. It is their choice to work on fixed-term contracts. The Bill does not recognise that.
      Clause 47 on flexible working was a late addition to the Bill. When it was introduced, I said that it was appallingly drafted, and I still believe that it is. A great chunk of it was lifted from the Bain report. The Minister has ignored the criticisms and questions that we raised about the wording in clause 47. It introduces terminology such as "staff', which is unknown to the Employment Rights Act 1996 into which it is inserted. Our noble Friends in the other place will want to give those matters further close attention.
      The flexible working provisions will impose a new and further burden on business that is not justified by any benefit that will be delivered. I emphasise that we support flexible working, but it cannot be effectively imposed by statute. The issues that we raised have not been dealt with.
      There are many other rather more minor matters that we have not had time to discuss tonight. Our noble Friends will want to take those up when the Bill reaches another place.
      We are considering the Bill in an environment of increased union militancy in which trade unions are asserting a veto over public policy—even public policy that the Government were clearly mandated to implement in the general election of 2001. Business has suffered a barrage of legislation, regulations, directives and taxes, some of which are specifically designed to hit the manufacturing sector, which is the worst affected.

      171
      Business faces one of the toughest environments for a decade. Britain is slipping down the competitiveness league. The productivity gap between the United States and the United Kingdom is widening. The Government respond by piling more cost burdens on business, which will damage our competitiveness still further.
      There are many good ideas in the Bill. There are also some very bad ones, and I am sorry that during its passage we have not persuaded the Government to modify or drop the worst of them. Even for many of the good ideas that we support and endorse, the time is simply not right. Business, especially small business, is reeling under a torrent of Government legislation, regulation and taxation burdens. It needs a breather and space to recoup, to recover and to regain its profitability. This is not the right time for the Bill and I must urge my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading.
      9.37 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: There is not much time, so I shall try to be brief.
      The Bill contains many good provisions. Unlike the Opposition, I believe that union learning representatives will be widely welcomed throughout industry, not only by employees, but by employers. The measures on paternity pay and leave and rights for adoptive parents are important steps forward. My hon. Friend the Minister's announcement tonight of the minimum income guarantee underwrites that. It is an important part of the process.
      If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to ask him to look hard at how we can improve the Bill before it passes to another place. I regret that we did not have time to reach the amendments that were tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
      The Bill provides a new floor for dispute resolution, which is an important step. As the Minister knows, some of us took the view that it would have been better if the ACAS code had been adopted as the basis; we shall have to agree to differ about that. I hope that he will consider the right to be accompanied and the need for proper investigation to take place during the dispute process.
      I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the continuing doubts about whether the concepts of hearing and meeting are really the same thing. I hope that he will reflect on that.
      I turn briefly to tribunals. My hon. Friend knows that there is already concern about the loading on of different types of costs to the tribunal structure, as well as the new additions in the Bill. We have not had time to debate that tonight, but I want to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister the deterrent effects involved.
      I shall quote briefly from a case that was brought to my attention. It involved an individual who claimed unfair dismissal and who initially acted for himself. His employer's representatives wrote to him, stating:
      "It is clear from the facts that your claim is wholly without merit and is bound to fail. Therefore, we hereby place you upon notice of costs as we are of the view that this claim is frivolous and vexatious and is bound to fail. For the avoidance of doubt, if you withdraw your claim, we shall not pursue you for costs."
      That individual finally sought help from his local law centre and was awarded £50,000 compensation, but his employer's representative had clearly tried to take him out of the game altogether.

      172
      This is a serious issue which cuts through the question of costs and other forms of compensatory structure, and I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on that. I do not know what he can say tonight to move the debate forward, but I should perhaps remind him that one or two of our noble Friends in the other place are already sitting there with bear traps waiting for the unwary.
      I was intrigued by the gap between the performance of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in Committee—the reasonable and, I think, the real hon. Member—and his performance tonight, for which he had been wound up by the Leader of the Opposition and forced to come along and make rather more divisive comments. Some of those comments were ludicrous, but they are all helpful in ensuring that we shall probably not see another Conservative Government in my lifetime.
      9.41 pm
      Mr. Prisk: I am aware that time is short, so I shall attempt to be brief. I congratulate the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on the professional and concise way in which they have led the debate. They have done so with style and often, dare I say, with aplomb, and one learns from this as a new Member of the House. This has meant that we have been able to have a predominantly constructive debate, which we all welcome.
      On that note, it is good to see maternity leave being matched by paternity leave in the Bill. It is important that we try whenever possible to recognise the role of fathers in families today, although I am disappointed that low-paid, self-employed fathers seem to be excluded from that generosity. I hope that the Minister will rethink that point.
      I shall return, as the Minister would expect, to the question of small businesses. I am still deeply concerned that the Government admit that the Bill will place a disproportionate burden on small firms. We make a fuss about small firms because they are the engine of the economy. They employ the most people and we rely on them for most of our services. The total cost of regulation to business will be in excess of £558 million every year from now on—never mind any costs arising out of the regulations to come—and a disproportionate part of that will fall on the small businesses on which we rely and on which the Chancellor relies for much of his income. The fact that that burden falls on them in that disproportionate way needs to be borne in mind, and I am sure that the Minister will do that.
      Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is not here at the moment. She will be given reserve powers to implement various regulations under the Bill, and I ask the Minister to pass on to her a request that the use of those powers should be sparing, well thought through, and carried out in a thorough manner.
      In the preamble to this debate, and during our discussions, much has been made by Ministers and their supporters of the fact that this is a family friendly Bill. That is an admirable quality, but there is a group comprising 4 million households that the Bill will not help. I am talking about self-employed people, who already spend 31 hours a month trying to deal with the existing bureaucracy, and who will now have to lose another weekend or evening that they could have spent

      173
      with their families. Please let us not forget those families; they are important and we should not ignore them. I hope that the notion of this being a family friendly Bill will be extended to them as well.
      9.44 pm
      Ms Walley: I congratulate the Government on having listened to much of what has been said since the initial consultation. However, given that this evening's debate has been cut short and we were unable to consider two groups of amendments that I very much wanted to discuss, I shall use the couple of minutes available to implore the Minister to look again at the issues that they cover.
      Last July, the Government introduced a new regulation in respect of employment tribunals which enables on-the-spot costs awards of between £500 and £10,000. It is already clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) said, employers are using the regulation to harass and intimidate, and as a disincentive to taking cases to employment tribunals. I do not want this splendid Bill to be spoiled by people being unable to take cases to employment tribunals because of the fear of incurring costs.
      Before the Bill proceeds to the other place, I ask the Minister carefully to consider introducing a right to argue against costs and new regulations requiring employment tribunals to take into account people's ability to pay on-the-spot costs of £10,000. Such a requirement does not exist in case law. That is an important issue for smaller companies in particular, where there is often little trade union representation.
      On amendments Nos. 12, 34 and 35, which we were unable to discuss, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. The newly modified statutory procedure does not take account of the basic rules of natural justice. I have discussed that issue with the Minister, and in my view we could introduce a procedure that is easier to follow.
      I congratulate the Government on enabling far more people to be brought under the new regime, but we shall not make progress if our attempts to simplify undermine natural justice and give employment tribunals carte blanche to find against individuals. I implore the Minister to consider those important points of detail before the Bill progresses to the other place. The devil is always in the detail, and the rest of the Bill and the huge gains made on fixed-term contracts, maternity and paternity pay and adoption leave should not be spoiled by a failure to take account of those two small but none the less significant procedural issues.
      9.48 pm
      Norman Lamb: I begin by reiterating that there is considerable support on the Liberal Democrat Benches for the vast majority of the Bill. We strongly support the introduction of paternity leave, extended maternity leave and adoption leave, which are good and welcome reforms. The introduction, with a light touch, of flexible working is also extremely welcome and it builds sensibly on existing law on indirect discrimination. We are concerned, however, about the Bill's impact on small businesses, which is why we support regular monitoring not only of its benefits, but of its cost to that sector in particular.
      174
      I want to focus on an issue raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), which I regard as a matter of absolute principle. I have already crossed swords with the Minister, far too early on a Sunday morning, on BBC Radio 5 Live over the question of the modified dismissal and disciplinary procedure, but I will raise it again. In effect, the procedure removes a fundamental right to defend oneself before dismissal. That applies to all cases of gross misconduct which, obviously, are the most serious cases.
      I do not understand the logic. Why are people's rights diminished when the allegations are of the most serious kind? The opposite obtains in criminal law: when serious allegations are made, people have a right to trial by jury. They have almost extended rights of protection. Under the Bill, those confronted by such allegations will not even have the right to a hearing before being dismissed. That is quite simply wrong. An entitlement that survived 18 years of Conservative government is now being removed by a Labour Government.
      In cases involving gross misconduct, the facts are often complex. A mass of documentation is often involved, and often the original allegation can be disproved by the employee concerned.
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should understand that in all cases, including those of gross misconduct, there is a right to appeal.
      Norman Lamb: I do understand that, but I know from considerable experience as an employment lawyer—indeed, we all know—that once an employee is out of the door, the right of appeal will rarely lead to reinstatement. The chance to have a say must come before the decision is made.
      In Committee and on other occasions, the Minister has said that the Bill provides, in a sense, a bottom line and that many companies have more detailed procedures. He must accept, however, that part of the Bill constitutes an effective reversal of the Polkey principle. That means, in layman's terms, that if an employer can convince a tribunal that going through the more extended procedures would have made no difference, the dismissal is fair. Inevitably, employers will go to tribunals and argue that case. They will say that they have ignored the more extended procedures because they would have made no difference, and that the dismissal should therefore be found to be fair. The result will be less protection for employees.
      Moreover, as time goes by employers are bound to amend their disciplinary procedures to bring them more into line with the basic provisions of the Bill. In cases of gross misconduct, employees, according to companies' own disciplinary procedures, will have no right to a hearing before being dismissed. All they will have is a rather hopeless right of appeal after the event.
      We hear from the Minister that the ACAS code provides additional guidance and protection, but we are told that ACAS will amend the code in the light of the Bill. Who knows what will result from that? I think it almost inevitable that ACAS will reduce the protection in line with the reduced protection provided by the Bill.
      There is no doubt that existing case law provides the right to a hearing before dismissal. That case law, however, is flexible enough to recognise the existence of

      175
      exceptional cases. The Minister gave the example of a "one-man band", when an employee thumps his employer in the face. A disciplinary hearing would be of little value in such circumstances; under existing law, a tribunal would find a dismissal without a hearing to be fair. Existing law also enables an employer to remove an employee from the premises by way of suspension, in order to remove a difficult problem pending a hearing. The hearing, however, must still take place.
      I urge the Minister to listen both to Labour Members and to us, and to seriously consider whether, in cases of gross misconduct, he really wants to remove the right to the fundamental protection provided by a hearing before dismissal. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, it would be a shame to damage a Bill that has so much merit by removing a protection that survived 18 years of Conservative government.
      9.54 pm
      Judy Mallaber: May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of the points that have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends? I will not rehearse the arguments which have been put by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). We have concerns about issues such as preparation costs and whether they will act as a disincentive to people taking cases forward.
      I should like to highlight the very positive items in the Bill, especially the paternity and adoption leave provisions. I could give numerous examples of how flexible working will benefit employers and employees. I know of nurses who are unable to return to work, although we want them to do so, because local management is not prepared to be flexible about adjusting their rota to enable those nurses to deal with their child care provision.
      I am intrigued by the attitude of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was almost cuddly and positively friendly in Committee, yet tonight he tells us that the Bill is all about burdens on business. There is a considerable contradiction in Conservative Members' attitude. My hon. Friend the Minister pointed out the benefits and savings available to employers in operating flexible working conditions. The proposals have been put forward in consultation with employers, unions and representatives.
      I was astonished to find that as soon as we discussed union learning representatives—promoting education in the workplace and using that huge trade union experience and history to promote education in basic skills and other areas for people at work—Conservative Members suddenly went completely doolally and decided that this was the end of civilisation as we know it. We spent nearly a whole day debating it—it was simply amazing. Conservative Members have displayed considerable contradiction in their attitude to the Bill's very positive proposals. We should be using people's skills and encouraging them; it is difficult to get people at work to acknowledge that they have a skills gap and that they need training and education. The more help there is to achieve that the better.
      I applaud the Bill's positive proposals. We have seen the clear division between Labour Members who want a positive attitude towards relations in the work force and
      176
      Conservative Members who, even when they are trying to be good and nice on various issues, end up reverting to type in wanting to create conflict rather than co-operation.
      9.58 pm
      Mr. Simmonds: There is much in the Bill that I welcome, such as new rights for parents, flexible working, maternity and paternity pay and leave and, in particular, the reform of the tribunal system. However, we should be under no illusion: the Bill is driven by the Government's desire to acquiesce to the trade unions. In effect, it is payback time. The Bill redresses the balance and moves the fulcrum from the position that it has occupied, correctly, for so many years.
      There are serious issues in the Bill with which I disagree, such as the allowance of trade union learning representatives—time off in which to continue to ply their trade—and fixed-term contracts. Many complicated issues to do with pensions, of tremendous concern to employer organisations, have not been debated properly. Burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, will continue to lead to the further erosion of competitiveness. Apparently, we have dropped from ninth to 19th in the table.
      I urge the Minister and future Secretaries of State to use the regulations provided for in the Bill with consideration and thought, and to bear in mind the continued burden and cost to businesses.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 132.

      Division No. 167]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Allan, Richard

      Burnham, Andy

      Allen, Graham

      Burstow, Paul

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Cairns, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Banks, Tony

      Caplin, Ivor

      Barnes, Harry

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Caton, Martin

      Battle, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Challen, Colin

      Beard, Nigel

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Chaytor, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Chidgey, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clapham, Michael

      Benn, Hilary

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clelland, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Brake, Tom

      Cohen, Harry

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Colman, Tony

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Browne, Desmond

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      177

      Corston, Jean

      Holmes, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Hope, Phil

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cummings, John

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      David, Wayne

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Joyce, Eric

      Doughty, Sue

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fisher, Mark

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lamb, Norman

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lammy, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Laws, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foulkes, George

      Leslie, Christopher

      Galloway, George

      Levitt, Torn

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Linton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gidley, Sandra

      Love, Andrew

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lucas, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Luke, Iain

      Goggins, Paul

      Lyons, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Grogan, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      MacDougall, John

      Hancock, Mike

      McFall, John

      Hanson, David

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harvey, Nick

      McKechin, Ann

      Havard, Dai

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Healey, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Heath, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hendrick, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heppell, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hermon, Lady

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heyes, David

      Mann, John

      Hill, Keith

      Marris, Rob

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      178

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miliband, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Soley, Clive

      Mole, Chris

      Southworth, Helen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Moore, Michael

      Squire, Rachel

      Moran, Margaret

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morgan, Julie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Stevenson, George

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Norris, Dan

      Stringer, Graham

      Oaten, Mark

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Hara, Edward

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tami, Mark

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Picking, Anne

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thurso, John

      Pond, Chris

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Price, Adam

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tyler, Paul

      Purnell, James

      Tynan, Bill

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rammell, Bill

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rapson, Syd

      Watson, Tom

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Watts, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Webb, Steve

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Weir, Michael

      Rendel, David

      White, Brian

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wishart, Pete

      Ryan, Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Salmond, Alex

      Woodward, Shaun

      Salter, Martin

      Woolas, Phil

      Sanders, Adrian

      Worthington, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. Ian Pearson.

      179

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gray, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Grayling, Chris

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Greenway, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Baldry, Tony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Barker, Gregory

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Baron, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bercow, John

      Hayes, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hendry, Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Hoban, Mark

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Horam, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Burns, Simon

      Hunter, Andrew

      Burnside, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Butterfill, John

      Key, Robert

      Cameron, David

      Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cash, William

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Leigh, Edward

      Letwin, Oliver

      Chope, Christopher

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Clappison, James

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Loughton, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Cran, James

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Mates, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fallon, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Norman, Archie

      Gale, Roger

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Garnier, Edward

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gibb, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      180

      Page, Richard

      Swire, Hugo

      Paice, James

      Syms, Robert

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Paterson, Owen

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Prisk, Mark

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Viggers, Peter

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Walter, Robert

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Watkinson, Angela

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ruffley, David

      Wiggin, Bill

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Selous, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Yeo, Tim

      Spink, Bob

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Swayne, Desmond

      Dr. Julian Lewis.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

    TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

  Rail Services (Bromley)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. John Horam: I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about rail services in Bromley and to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who is in the Chamber because she is as concerned about those rail services as I am. I tell the Minister, who is listening with his usual assiduity, that many thousands of people commute daily from stations such as Orpington, Petts Wood, Chelsfield and St. Mary Cray, in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend. Those people make a massive contribution to London's economy, which now represents one fifth of the United Kingdom's entire economy.
  Some 21 per cent. of our national income comes from London, and my constituents make a huge contribution to that. Indeed, the public revenues, which the Minister is here to represent on this occasion, receive a net contribution of £13 billion to £23 billion, depending on how it is calculated, from London, to which my commuting constituents make a solid contribution. I could say of them what John Milton, one of our great English poets, said in addressing Parliament:
  "Lords and Commons of England—Consider what nation it is whereof you are and of which you are the governors: a nation not slow and dull, but of quick, ingenious and piercing spirit; acute to invent, subtile and sinewy to discourse, not beneath the reach of any point that human capacity can soar to."
  Such are my constituents—they are the very backbone of our economy and nation in my view and in that of many others. As they commute in and out of our great metropolis, they deserve a good commuter rail service, but the fact is that they are not getting that service today.
  I have raised this issue continually, as the Minister is well aware because he has replied to at least two of those debates. In this Session, I have raised it time and again. I referred to the commuting problems of my constituents on 26 June in the debate on the Loyal Address. I raised the issue in Westminster Hall in the debate on transport in the south-east, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I did so again in the debate on Railtrack initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 13 November, and in the Christmas Adjournment debate on 19 December, and I also asked a question when the Transport Secretary introduced his strategic rail plan on 14 January. The Select Committee on Environmental Audit, of which I have the privilege to be the Chairman, also had the interesting experience of cross-questioning the Secretary of State.
  I have raised the issue on several occasions in the House because it is a daily problem for my constituents, and I am very concerned about their daily problems. In addition, in December, with the help of my friends in the Orpington Conservative association, I stood outside the four stations—not all at once, obviously—in my constituency and handed out questionnaires, which my constituents were happy enough to fill in. I have here the responses, or at least a proportion of them, and I should be happy to pass them to the Minister if he would like to look at them.
  182
  I am a one-man focus group so far as the Minister is concerned. I can tell him that a great deal of pain is expressed in those pages; they contain my constituents' honest comments on the rail service that they receive. Their main complaint is overcrowding, closely followed by punctuality—perhaps I should rephrase that as delays or non-punctuality—further followed by the fact that there are few late-night trains and by the lack of disabled access. However, there was very little criticism of the staff. Both the station staff and the train staff were universally praised for the concerns that they have shown. The staff should be praised, because it is not their fault that the train services are bad.
  I took all the information to Mr. Olivier Brousse, the managing director of Connex South Eastern. We had a useful conversation and I formed a favourable impression of his managerial capacities. I also gained the impression that he was doing his best to provide a good rail service to commuters in my constituency but that he needed the proper support. Subsequent to that meeting, Mr. Brousse's chief of staff wrote to me to say:
  "Thank you for taking the time to meet Olivier last week to discuss the Connex rail network."
  The letter confirmed:
  "Your recent passenger survey reflects the concerns of our passengers across the south-east and I am grateful to you for detailing the most common complaints."
  My remarks are therefore reinforced by the views of the managing director of the rail company providing the service to my constituents.
  As the House knows, the Government have regrettably ceased to publish figures for the punctuality of train services and will not do so until March. I do not quite know why that it is—
  Mr. Greg Knight: We do know.
  Mr. Horam: Well, we suspect that we know even if we have yet to receive a formal explanation.
  The Government reckoned without the assiduity of the shadow Minister for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He invoked the passengers charter, which says that train companies must publish monthly their figures for punctuality, and he has put together the figures. They show that, since Railtrack was put into administration in September, delays on the south-east Kent link line have increased by 47 per cent. and that delays on the south-east Kent coast line have increased by 58 per cent. That represents a huge collapse in punctuality since Railtrack was taken into administration. Mr. Brousse also told me that the number of seats lost per day has risen from 24,000 to 100,000, and that fact further explains the overcrowding on the service.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am listening to my hon. Friend carefully, because his experience mirrors mine. However, there are only four railway stations in his constituency whereas there are 13 in mine.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the simplest solutions to overcrowding would be to lengthen the trains? To lengthen the trains, it is necessary to lengthen the platforms, but the Government's takeover and renationalisation of Railtrack means that there is little

  183
  chance of being able to carry out the development that will lengthen the platforms and help to relieve the problem of overcrowding.
  Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I shall come to that exact point and direct questions to the Minister that I hope he will be able to answer.
  Apart from the ongoing problem of overcrowding that my hon. Friend and I have mentioned, there has been a disastrous collapse in punctuality following the events of September. The managing director of Connex South Eastern was quite plain about the causes of that. He said that it resulted from the collapse of morale of Railtrack staff that had followed the Government's decisions. The staff simply do not know what sort of company they are working for. Decisions are being delayed, so they do not know what sort of company they will work for. They do not know whether it will be a German company, a private company or a Government-sponsored company. They are in a state of confusion and that obviously affects their morale.
  Although things have been better since Christmas, the improvement is fragile. I share the opinion of the managing director of Connex South Eastern that if the Railtrack problem is not resolved inside six months there is a danger of losing key staff and the situation will spiral further downwards. When will Railtrack come out of administration? When will we have some certainty about its future? The Minister will recall that the Secretary of State said on "Breakfast with Frost" that that will take just over six months, but it has already been nearly six months. Are the Government talking about another six months? Will it happen this autumn?
  The Minister may also be aware of the power supply problem. We have had the wrong leaves and the wrong snow; we now have the wrong power. The new 375 trains are too powerful for the electric current that is used on the south-eastern track. They are coming into service in the next few months and cannot be used except in "a degraded form", to quote the managing director. They will have to go much more slowly so that they do not overload the power system, which means that punctuality will again be unsatisfactory. When will that problem be resolved?
  Overcrowding, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham referred, is also a problem. The phrase "cattle-truck commuting" has been used to describe how people are so squashed into carriages that they have less room than many animals do when we transport them around the country. As a consequence, we have the phenomenon of rail rage. The House may not be familiar with that term, although we have all heard of road rage. I have witnessed rail rage at Charing Cross station in the evening when too many people are trying to get on to a train. Inevitably, the unsatisfactory rail service puts pressure on people, forces them into disputes and causes friction and anger. The Government must pay attention to that.
  As my hon. Friend said, the solution in the medium term is to lengthen platforms and re-site signal boxes so that instead of the usual four-car or six-car trains, 12-car trains can be used to carry more people, especially during peak travelling times. I have a copy of the shortened version of the strategic plan, which is beautifully presented. It contains the commitment that by 2005 most of the 11,000 platforms throughout the country will be
  184
  lengthened and the problem will be addressed. Will all the stations on the Connex lines—the Kent link and the Kent coast line—that serve Bromley be lengthened so that we have 12-car trains to tackle the problem of overcrowding? Will that be resolved by 2005?
  Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that no Liberal Democrats are present to listen to his clear exposition of the problems that commuters face in Bromley?
  Mr. Horam: This is a matter on which we could have a measure of cross-party agreement. The Minister is here, and I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). His constituency is far from Bromley, but he is still interested in these matters. It is disappointing that there are no Liberal Democrat Members present, and in view of what they have said in the past it is rather surprising.
  I should like an answer to the crucial question of whether platforms at all the stations along the line from Orpington, Beckenham, St. Mary Cray and Chelsfield will be lengthened so that they can take trains long enough to resolve the problem of overcrowding.
  It has been suggested that the toilets and seats should be removed from coaches to cram in more people. That is a desperate measure, and it would be a move backwards, not forwards, if people could not even get a seat on the train or go to the toilet. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. From Orpington, it may take 25 or 30 minutes to get to central London, so there must be no question of removing the seats and toilets from those trains. What, then, is being suggested? Are we talking only about very short journeys, of perhaps 10 or 15 minutes, in which case the train is more like a tube train and it may be acceptable to have no seats or toilets?
  On my final point, safety, I shall be brief, as I want to give the Minister time to reply fully on this important matter. Like Conservative Members, he knows that the railways have a history of being very safe; and they remain so. Whether nationalised or privatised, the railways are the safest mode of transport, although the issue of safety was not well handled by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was in charge of these matters, or by the Government as a whole. There are still worries about safety, particularly in overcrowded trains such as those from Bromley and Orpington. People wonder, "What if something goes wrong while I am packed into this train like a sardine?"
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham may know that there was a derailment at Beckenham junction only 10 days ago. There were two serious incidents of signals passed at danger near Orpington in which, fortunately, no one was killed or seriously injured, and there was a fire on a train from Orpington to central London. I understand from the strategic plan that the train protection and warning system will be in place by 2003. Does that mean that all the trains coming from Bromley and Orpington will have the TPWS installed by the end of next year, so that the sort of accidents that occurred last year and continue this year will no longer be possible?
  I invite the Minister to remember my initial remarks, which were that this debate concerns the most important people—the backbone of this country's economy—who come from Bromley every day to run London's economy.

  185
  They deserve, and are certainly sorely in need of, a sensible and comfortable daily commute in and out of London.
  10.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on securing this debate. He noted my assiduity in listening to him, which I always do, and I noted his assiduity in raising this matter in the House on so many occasions.
  I was sorry that the tone of the debate was somewhat lowered by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I believe that the Speaker's guidelines are that no reference should be made to Members of other parties who may or may not be in the Chamber during half-hour debates. Perhaps the hon. Lady should refresh her memory in that respect. She also mentioned the renationalisation of Railtrack, and some may harbour an ambition to do that, but I am sorry to disappoint her: Railtrack is in administration and will come out of administration when that is what the administrator advises.
  I am aware of the contribution made by the people of south-east England to our economy. The hon. Member for Orpington said that they were the most important; some might differ from him on that point, but I shall not engage him on it tonight. We recognise the importance to our economy of the south-east and those who travel daily to work. I hope he will note that I have the good grace to admit there are transport problems—he described them as a daily problem for his constituents. In return, he might have the good grace to admit that those problems did not start on 1 May 1997.
  I have little time to respond to the debate, but let me first address the current performance of Connex South Eastern, which provides the service to and from Bromley North and Bromley South. The latest figures published by the Strategic Rail Authority for the period 1 April 2001 to 13 October 2001 show that 83.9 per cent. of Connex South Eastern services arrived within five minutes of their scheduled arrival time. Since those statistics were published, I understand from the SRA that performance has deteriorated, mainly due to adverse weather conditions and a consequential increase in infrastructure and train failures. The hon. Gentleman cited the figures for recent months, but I am sure that if he looks back over many years, he will see that performance figures tend to deteriorate at this time of year, and generally pick up as the weather improves.
  Connex is well aware that improvements are necessary. On 10 January, it launched a new performance drive—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with it. Called "Over 90", it is aimed at achieving more than 90 per cent. peak punctuality. I understand the current results are encouraging.
  The plan for the future of the railway published on 14 January by the SRA identifies priorities for improving Britain's rail network to ensure that the Government's growth targets are met. The plan outlines how improvements for passengers and freight customers will be delivered in the medium and short term, and also sets out our long-term ideas for the next decade.
  186
  Although rail traffic has grown substantially since privatisation, which requires extra trains, the existing infrastructure has sometimes failed to match network capacity, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. That has inevitably led to operating difficulties and poor perception of our railways. However, there is no question but that Britain's railways have a key role to play in the economy, in reducing road congestion, in offering a safe form of travel, in protecting the environment, and in safeguarding health and promoting social inclusion.
  London and the south-east will benefit vastly from the strategic plan, as travel to and from London is the major source of demand for passenger rail travel: 70 per cent. of journeys nationally are made on the London and south-east network. The London and south-east area suffers from the worst overcrowding: the numbers passing daily through the main London terminals are now at an historic high. Measures will be taken to tackle overcrowding on all 10 London train operating companies. That may require longer trains, longer platforms and increased track capacity.
  Early developments on the Connex South Eastern franchise will ensure the introduction of 210 vehicles of new class 375 rolling stock by 2002; I will say more about that shortly, if there is time. The company will also invest £40.5 million in rolling stock reliability improvements for class 465, 466 and 508 trains. Connex South Eastern has 145 stations eligible for upgraded facilities under the incremental output statements scheme described in the strategic plan, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar. The works are due to be completed by the end of 2004 and could include facilities such as waiting rooms, toilets, security and information systems.
  Significant capacity will be freed on the existing network in 2007, when the channel tunnel rail link is planned to open. It will offer fast domestic services from Kent, with new trains, and will contribute to a major reduction in overcrowding, as well as reducing the number of Eurostar trains running through Orpington from 2003 and through Bromley from 2007. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that as an improvement.
  In common with other train operating companies, Connex is required to remove all mark 1, slam-door rolling stock from service by 31 December 2004. The obligation to replace this stock is contained within its current franchise agreement.
  Connex has 55 new trains, which are currently undergoing tests and modifications, which must be completed before they can go into passenger service.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about power supply. The Strategic Rail Authority is leading a cross-industry team that is charged with overseeing the programme for replacing the slam-door trains in the Southern region and ensuring that the future electric power and infrastructure improvements are capable of meeting both the 2004 deadline for replacement and longer-term needs. I am assured that currently there are no vehicles sitting idle because of power supply problems. I am sure that that will be good news for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Horam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jamieson: I will give way, but I will be inhibited from responding to some of his other points.
  Mr. Horam: Does what the Minister says mean that the power supply problem will be solved by the end of 2004?
  Mr. Jamieson: I am saying that the power supply problems, as they exist, will be addressed by that time. It is hoped and anticipated that the problems will be dealt with in that time. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is difficult to make an assessment because the amount of power required for the new units and how many will come into commission by that time are matters for the company. Another factor is delivery from the rolling stock companies. As I have said, that would certainly be our ambition.
  The Strategic Rail Authority has funded a number of workstreams aimed at identifying the enhancements to the network that might be necessary. Last month it agreed funding for the establishment of a dedicated project team within Railtrack charged with continuing this work, and putting a plan together to resource and deliver it.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the strategic plan objective for Connex to extend platforms to accommodate 12-car trains to increase capacity and reduce overcrowding. Extended platforms on the Dartford via Bexleyheath and Sidcup routes will be included in the Thameslink 2000 project while extending platforms on the Gillingham and Dartford via Greenwich route is also proposed in the strategic plan. I hope that that is also good news for the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman was also concerned that Railtrack in administration may be affecting morale and subsequent performance. Railtrack was a company that failed. It had
  188
  massive cost overruns, and in the end it was incapable of delivering the improvements that we and its customers had every right to see. I hope to see Railtrack come out of administration quickly, but the length of administration is set by the administrator, who has duties both to its railway and to the shareholders of Railtrack plc, and to is creditors. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the Government's objective that the process can be completed as quickly as possible.
  It is not surprising that uncertainty has affected Railtrack staff since the company went into administration, but the Government remain committed to providing £30 billion of support to the railways over the 10-year plan. Railtrack being taken into administration has not altered that commitment one jot. I am sure that that will be good news to the hon. Gentleman.
  We now have an opportunity to meet the ambition that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have to create and operate a better railway system. It will be for the administrator to make recommendations to Ministers on the most appropriate structure for Railtrack to emerge from administration.
  This has been a short but useful debate. Sadly, I have not had the time to cover all the points made by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beckenham—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Antisocial Behaviour Orders
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Randall: When I applied for the debate, I wrote on the paper "antisocial behaviour" without the "orders". I do not know whether those in your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, decided that it was too close to the bone for a member of the Opposition Whips Office to speak about antisocial behaviour, but they decided to qualify the title by adding "orders", which is probably what I should have done in the first place. I am grateful to those who ensured that my debate was in order.
Every day, constituents telephone us in a desperate state to tell us about the antisocial behaviour that they, their neighbours or friends are experiencing. Antisocial behaviour affects us all in many ways. The term "antisocial behaviour" covers a multitude of sins, from underage drinking to quite serious offences—not that underage drinking is not a serious offence: I shall show how serious it is later. We do not always come across typical antisocial behaviour.
I cite two different examples from West Drayton, a small area of my constituency. One is a more typical example, to which we are more used. There is a park in an area called "The Closes", which various residential areas surround. Youths who frequent that park have caused a lot of misery by committing a variety of offences, including driving cars on to the park and setting fire to them, sniffing lighter fuel, being abusive to people walking past and generally creating an unpleasant atmosphere for all concerned. Those offences are associated with problem families, which is an issue to which I shall return.
The other example concerns something that occurs only a mile and half away and is caused by a slightly older age group. Bikers have discovered a good piece of road on which to race—the Stockley bypass. They are not local, but come from far and wide. They are not from a deprived background, as they have expensive machines. The season is about to start as the evenings are getting longer and the weather is becoming more clement. Throughout the week, but especially at weekends, they make the neighbours' lives hell by racing and revving up their engines through the night. That has led to another problem. Local kids come out to watch and decide to do their own thing later, with cars that they have probably taken without the owners' consent. It has become such a spectator sport that a burger van attends. Although the police and the local authority have tried to deal with all these offences, they have not had as much success as local residents would like, and demand.
I mentioned that second example because, if we are not careful, we may fabricate a stereotype of antisocial behaviour being committed in certain areas.
2WH
Deprivation certainly has an effect, but antisocial behaviour is also a result of problems in families, which is an important factor.
The male age group that is most likely to commit crime is 18 to 20, followed by 15 to 17 and 12 to 14. The statistics are slightly different for females. The female age group most likely to commit crime is 15 to 17, followed by 18 to 20 and 12 to 14. It is generally agreed that once a child has committed his first offence, the barrier against crime is breached, the behaviour seems to become more acceptable to the child, and he is more likely to slip into a pattern of reoffending. That is frightening. It is most disturbing for us to find children as young as eight, or even younger, committing minor offences. We all have a suspicion, based on our everyday experience, that if the offending is not dealt with appropriately it will simply continue. The cost of juvenile delinquency to society and our communities is huge. It is also having a severe effect on us financially.
As a result of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Government introduced antisocial behaviour orders on 1 April 1999, with good intentions. I have a range of statistics to hand, but I fight shy of presenting them, as we are probably well enough aware of them. The orders have been criticised as being too bureaucratic and complex. They require the police to hold case conferences and consultations, and to collect a huge body of evidence before applying for an order.
Although the antisocial behaviour orders were intended to be cheap, quick and easy to obtain, the reality has become the reverse. That is why so few orders have been issued. There is also the issue of cost. I have seen estimates of more than £100,000 for obtaining just one order. The orders appear to have been ineffective and not what the Government had hoped.
On 2 July 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said:
"Three years ago, when considering the proposals in Committee, I warned the Government that antisocial behaviour orders would be unworkable and over-bureaucratic. Ministers responded that more than 5,000 would probably be made every year."—[Official Report, 2 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 8.]
The truth is a long way off that number.
I have picked up several suggestions from residents and the police, and it is fair to point out that eviction orders are not always seen as the answer. In July 2000, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that serving eviction orders against families for antisocial behaviour was failing to address the real issue and the underlying causes of problems such as mental illness, or drug or alcohol addiction. Many families that are evicted from council housing often end up in the private sector, perhaps only streets away. People who are suffering from that antisocial behaviour would say, "I don't care where they go as long as they are not round here," and I understand their sentiments, but we in Parliament must consider where those people can go and how we can rectify their behaviour. In my limited experience of four or five years in the House but also as a lifelong resident in that area, it seems to me that the problem is increasing. It gives rise too much worry and anger among the public.
In December 2001 a White Paper dealing with the issue was published, to which I am sure that the Minister will refer; I welcome some of its proposals.

3WH
It acknowledged that take-up of the orders in many areas was limited because they were perceived as expensive, labour-intensive, slow, ineffective and litigious. The Home Office plans to streamline the procedures. The proposed interim order to enable immediate action to be taken prior to the full process would help. It would also help to have an order that travels with the person on whom it is served so that, if he moves, the order goes with him. There is certainly a case for extending the scope of the orders by allowing registered social landlords and the British Transport police to apply. Some people criticise the idea of social landlords' having that power but, because antisocial behaviour covers such a wide variety of crime, it is difficult to resolve in all cases.
As we would all agree, prevention is better than cure. There are two angles to the issue of prevention. The first is to try to sort out the causes of the problem in terms of the social issues—dysfunctional families, mental illnesses and so on—about which we have heard. However, I hear constantly about the other side: that many people would probably be deterred by a stronger police presence on the streets. I mean by that community police officers, perhaps still on bicycles—I do not know whether the police would back me on that, but there is a demand for it. Policing works well where police officers are local and know the area.
We await the results of the trial of acceptable behaviour contracts, which I mentioned earlier. If it is successful, I hope that it will be taken up. When I have been out and about with the police on patrol, looking at how to curb underage antisocial behaviour, I have been struck by the lack of respect shown by youngsters to the police and authority. I am deeply concerned about the proposal in the new Police Reform Bill about auxiliaries because if those young people have no respect for the police, they will have even less for auxiliaries. Believing that it will be effective merely to issue tickets, as it were, is living in cloud cuckoo land. However, we must tackle the issue and I will support anything that will be a genuine aid in doing so because it causes so much misery to so many people.
9.44 am
Ms Joan Walley: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is important throughout my constituency. I know from the letters and telephone calls that I receive, from the people who come to my surgery and from my visits to residents associations that the issues of whether people feel safe in their communities and of what can be done to deal with crime and the fear of crime are virtually top of the list of issues that people want to raise. Surveys conducted by Stoke-on-Trent city council confirm those concerns. I wish to participate briefly in the debate to convey the fact that much is being done and those we are determined to tackle antisocial behaviour. We look to the Government for greater resources and more backing to ensure that, where there is resolute determination to deal with antisocial behaviour, the means exist to do so.
I wish to outline some of the problems that we have had with antisocial behaviour orders. We are fortunate in Stoke-on-Trent city council in having an antisocial behaviour officer who links closely with the community
4WH
safety partnership and local housing departments across the city. Concerns about antisocial behaviour are fed quickly into the city council and action is taken. However, there is a feeling that antisocial behaviour orders are bureaucratic, too slow and take up resources. As the Government has said, now is the time to consider how they can be modified so that people can have confidence that the issues that they raise will be dealt with speedily.
In a case in my constituency involving a prostitute, it took one police officer and one police sergeant six weeks each to gather the information to take the case to court; 27 written statements were needed. As a result of those delays, the police officers gathering the evidence eventually had to go back to each of the 27 witnesses. The process is very time-consuming and bureaucratic. We must be aware of human rights, but we also need to streamline and fast-track the procedure. It is vital for those who complain about antisocial behaviour to have faith in the authorities to deliver. Such delays in getting results through the court can undermine people's faith in the authorities and their belief in civil society, at a time when we should be fostering that. I should be interested to hear what the Minister says in her winding-up speech about how we can modify the procedure.
A further example from my constituency involved a case that reached the courts. The courts awarded an antisocial behaviour order, which was then breached. When the case returned to the courts they did not, in the view of many people involved in gathering evidence in the first instance, take that breach seriously enough. I ask the Minister to consider the ways in which guidance given to courts is reviewed so that where a great deal of effort, time, trouble and raised expectations is involved in securing an antisocial behaviour order, the courts do not then destroy that order. The issue is important.
I also stress the importance of antisocial behaviour orders in the wider context. They are just one piece of the jigsaw of ways in which we tackle antisocial behaviour. Young people who stand around on street corners may not create problems but they may be perceived to do so by local people. Far more time and effort should be directed to providing youth and community services that are acceptable to young people in those areas, so that the wider community can nurture future generations in civil society, instead of believing that they are a problem. That will have huge implications for the Connexions services and for youth and adult education and community services and we must consider the money going to finance and fund those resources. In my constituency, established groups and organisations do not always want to make buildings and premises available for young people because they perceive them to be a problem; they do not understand that making facilities available will empower them to be the first citizens of the next generation.
People often do not know where to go to find a solution to antisocial behaviour. It is very easy for a "pass the parcel" syndrome to develop in which a complaint passes from housing officers, to youth workers, to the police and so on, round the houses and there is a sense that no one has the responsibility for dealing with the issue. That is why I welcome the Government's new initiative on neighbourhood renewal and the use of neighbourhood support funds to bring all

5WH
the agencies together in a one-stop shop to deal in a concerted, resolute way with antisocial behaviour, however it is manifested.
The current spending round is high on everyone's agenda, and I urge the Minr to ensure that sufficient money will be available to do everything necessary to reduce crime and the fear of crime. When the Chancellor makes his announcement there should be no cuts that would further undermine the ability to deal with these issues.
Housing was mentioned briefly. Much antisocial behaviour, especially in my constituency, occurs when people move out of certain streets and drug addicts and prostitutes move in. That is an enormous problem for the remaining residents of those streets, which are being destroyed. People have to put up with noisy neighbours, with taxis and young people coming and going at all times of the day and night. People who suffer from that type of antisocial behaviour find it difficult to get up to go to work, especially if they work shifts, and it has a huge effect on their life.
The time has come for the Government to encourage Departments, including the Home Office, to work in conjunction to consider matters such as social registered landlords and housing benefit, and the way in which private landlords are able to rent out properties and allow antisocial behaviour to undermine the whole community. It is important to cut across different Departments, and encourage private landlords and socially responsible landlords to get together with the local police to see what can be done.
Mr. Randall: Does the hon. Lady accept that in my constituency it is not just private landlords who are involved? The local authority has a statutory requirement to house people. If those people then cause problems it takes a long time for them to be moved out.
Ms Walley: I recognise that problem; that is the dilemma and the challenge at the heart of the debate. It is a matter for council housing authorities, for private landlords and for social landlords, many of whom have taken over council housing stock, although fortunately not in my constituency. The most important thing would be to make it absolutely clear as a condition of a tenancy that failure to comply with the tenancy agreement would result in eviction. It is simply not fair that residents of certain streets and communities should have to tolerate antisocial behaviour.
However, people have rights to housing; therefore, we must implement measures firmly to ensure that people comply with housing and rental conditions and we must do what we can to ensure that people understand that some behaviour will not be tolerated, and prevent such behaviour in the first place. It is a vicious circle, but life is intolerable for those who live next door to the neighbours from hell.
We must go beyond considering landlords, whether of council or other housing, and look at the system of social security and housing benefit; the Government must send a firm message that we expect people to comply with basic tenancy agreements. It is a matter of redefining the problem and re-educating people, which is not easily done; there are no short-cut answers but there should be a process of education.
6WH
I want to flag up one final issue for the Minister to consider: I am pleased that there are two pilot areas for antisocial behaviour contracts in my constituency. When the extra resources of police and local organisations work with active residents associations in areas such as the Norton ward, where local councillors are doing a wonderful job, there is an excellent opportunity for all the authorities involved to link up and work in partnership. Any hint of antisocial behaviour may thus be prevented early on, to make it unnecessary to use complicated procedures to obtain antisocial behaviour orders.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about my concerns. I have received many letters begging the Government to consider these issues; I ask for speedier antisocial behaviour orders and for the Government to think about people's tenancy and housing rights when considering measures to tackle wrong behaviour as quickly as possible.
9.57 am
Ms Julia Drown: I shall follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said and pick up a point that she raised about prostitution.
There has been a problem with prostitution in central Swindon for a long time, but in the past few years the antisocial behaviour associated with the problem has become noticeably worse. I pay tribute to the residents of the area, who have had to put up with so much; they have rightly spoken up for their community and brought pressure to bear on the council, the police and the courts to take further action. It is extremely unpleasant to find that local residents have been faced with threats from prostitutes and pimps that used condoms are disposed of in their gardens and in back alleyways, and that telephones are ripped out when people report those complaints. The community is obviously keen for more action to be taken.
Local groups are working together to tackle the problem and I have met the police and the council together to discuss how to pursue the matter further. We are pleased that the Government has introduced antisocial behaviour orders, and now that kerb crawling has become an arrestable offence, the police have many more powers to tackle the problem. I appreciate that Ministers and the Home Secretary are committed to tackling the matter.
Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that magistrates who choose to give a fine of only £50 in a successful prosecution of kerb crawling do not do justice to the level of local concern about the issue? They could fine up to £1,000, as it is a level 3 offence.
Ms Drown: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such fines serve only to send the prostitutes back on the street to earn the money. More important, members of the community rightly respond with steam coming out of their ears, because they do so much to raise the issue but feel that they re being laughed at. We must find a different way of tackling the problem.
I wish to thank the police for their action. They have diverted resources to the area and kept them there to allay fears and tackle the problem. However, we have

7WH
had particular problems in Swindon with the use of antisocial behaviour orders. A great deal of work was done to take some prostitutes to magistrate's court using such orders; unfortunately, the cases failed. It would be difficult for us to determine the exact causes of the failure, but we in Swindon feel strongly that the cases would have been successful if they had gone to the county court. The magistrates decided that detailed cases against individual prostitutes had to be made and proven. The proof that the prostitutes had caused or were likely to cause antisocial behaviour was not strong enough.
We believe that the experience of county court judges tends to be different from that of magistrates; it is more relevant, and antisocial behaviour orders fit more appropriately into the areas that they cover. We would like the Government to consider and address the issue, because effective action must be taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North described the huge amount of work that goes into producing antisocial behaviour orders, particularly against prostitutes. We must ensure that such work gets results for the community.
A system could be set up whereby the cases went to the county court but magistrates continued to deal with cases in which antisocial behaviour orders were broken. In that way, we could bring some balance to the system. If the Government do not transfer such cases to the county court, we must seriously consider the training of magistrates, to ensure that they acquire relevant experience and are able to make antisocial behaviour orders effective.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Lady advanced the idea that part of the process could be transferred to the county court. Has she considered the delays in the civil court process, as a result of which she might simply introduce an extra complication that would not help her constituents or those of other hon. Members?
Ms Drown: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was about to address delays, which lead to extra frustration. As legislators, we must always be aware of the bubble of feeling in the community and the danger that people will take the law into their own hands. We must ensure that the courts can take action quickly enough. The Government is considering the creation of a fast-track system for antisocial behaviour orders. That must happen. We need a system whereby interim orders take effect to stop offending behaviour before the full court case comes up. I urge the Government to support that.
The results of a recent survey in the area were frightening. There was a huge response: most of the women had been propositioned, and most of the men and women felt threatened by activities in the area. It is not only individuals' social life that is affected, but also businesses, people who work from home, and child minders, who have to deal with people at the door. Such levels of antisocial behaviour are not acceptable.
Ministers are aware of the problem, and I hope that the powers to deal with it can be strengthened, particularly by taking cases to judges in the county
8WH
courts. Antisocial behaviour associated with prostitution in the neighbourhood is a real concern. It stops people going about their daily lives in peace, and it stops businesses working as effectively as they might. I urge the Government to take further action to support the community, the police, the council and the courts so that, together, we may effectively tackle a problem that has existed for too long.
10.5 am
Ms Dari Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate and thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me an opportunity to speak. Without a doubt, antisocial behaviour is increasing, if not at an exponential rate, to such an extent that it threatens virtually every home at some time during the year, so this is an important debate for each of us.
I have been closely involved with the police, the social services and the local authority in my community in reviewing the way in which antisocial behaviour and, particularly, antisocial behaviour orders are handled. In Stockton, three ASBOs are in place and seven are waiting for a court hearing. There is a clear and determined approach by a multi-agency group to establish effective measures for correcting the behaviour of many of our youngsters on the street.
Before I discuss suggestions for dealing with the problems and ways to secure improvements to the way in which ASBOs are handled, it is important that I mention the general belief within the police service and the local authority that this is an innovative approach. It has serious teething problems, but it is a multi-agency approach that is of value because parents are involved in a crucial and central way in achieving contracts of behaviour that should effectively control young people's behaviour. As I said, there is a sense that the scheme is innovative.
I acknowledge that there are difficulties; collecting evidence is certainly one of them. Serious caution inevitably influences the way in which people take evidence. They want to be sure that the evidence is in order and correct, and that when it is presented it will not be challenged. Thus there is a concern—a sweat—about collecting appropriate evidence. I will deal further with that shortly.
However, there is a belief that ASBOs will give people in the community an opportunity, for the first time, to give private evidence. They provide anonymity for those who previously would back off and say, "No, I won't come forward. I don't wish to make a statement about the youngsters, because they will throw bricks at my windows or intimidate me in other ways." People are now starting to see the positive side of ASBOs. A benefit is that they are no longer afraid of giving evidence to the court; a policeman can show the magistrates a signed statement from individuals in the community of the evidence that they wish to be included.
ASBOs clearly define when young people are out of control. I stress that we are often talking about a small percentage of a large group of people who get incensed when we generalise about them. I therefore resist the temptation to generalise, but that small group of people is inevitably the victims of peer pressure. Many of them find themselves acting up "having a bit of fun."

9WH
However, that bit of fun is at someone else's expense. Too many letters and visits to constituents have shown us what that bit of fun has achieved.
During the run up to 5 November, I heard of many episodes of youngsters throwing explosive fireworks into people's homes, or putting them on window-sills or through letter-boxes. In their terms, they were having a bit of fun. That was not a bit of fun but a nightmare for the people who live in those homes. The elderly reacted by blocking up their letter-boxes, turning off their lights, drawing their curtains and hoping that no one would think that they were at home. I do not underestimate for a minute what that behaviour is all about and how destructive it is. However, a child of eight or 10 does not have a sophisticated or well-rounded ability to make effective judgments about what their actions mean. Peer pressure has an inordinate influence on them. Through ASBOs, police officers or social services can become involved with such a family and talk to those youngsters, and may achieve an understanding of what is going on. That could be an effective early warning system; I hope that it will be.
If I say anything positive about ASBOs this morning, it is not because that is my direct experience. Frankly, it cannot be. However, the multi-agency group regards the behaviour contract of ASBOs as an effective system in which the behaviour that was being perpetuated is scrutinised by parents, social services and the police and is treated clinically and carefully. The contract may involve a curfew or preventing that young person from going to various parts of the locality. Whatever its form, the multi-agency group sees it as an effective mechanism for stopping offending behaviour and persuading youngsters that there is no end in sight other than an ASBO or, at an appropriate age, a custodial sentence. The police have told me that an ASBO is a frightening experience and has a salutary effect. An ASBO, in all its various stages, is one of the most effective measures when, and if, it can be brought together in an appropriate way. It is valuable for us all to see.
Most of us find it astounding when parents say that they did not know what their child was getting up to, or where they were. I had such a serious control over my own family—before I entered this place as a Member of Parliament, at least—that I always knew where they were and what they were doing. I had a sure understanding.
Mr. Randall: I acknowledge that there are many single-parent families, but in several cases the trouble started after the death of one of the parents. It is almost as if the remaining parent cannot cope with the children, and they need help at that early stage.
Ms Taylor: I agree with that important point. It is not just death that brings on the problem, but divorce, or the choice to be a single parent. The strain is monumental. I am part of a marriage partnership that is stable and supportive, but even in that situation it is difficult and can be problematic. Increasingly often, the police are becoming the other parent. The social services are providing the type of support that a parent would give. Perhaps we should not be relying on that, but if they are giving parents the support that is required and that stops antisocial behaviour, it is valuable.
10WH
We all know of far too many examples of antisocial behaviour. Although it is still early days and there are serious teething problems, it is worth while to persist with solutions. What is the alternative if it is not an ASBO or a behaviour contract? We want to make the orders part of a legalistic structure and we want others to see the efficacy of such action. What else would we put in their place that would give us the same support? From my experience of working in a remand home and a detention centre, I know that they are not places in which the behaviour of youths can be rebuilt. They are often places to which children are sent who have gone off the rails for a short time, but once in a detention centre, it is extraordinarily difficult to get them back into society because they have learned too much about being off the rails. The sheer impossibility of their returning to social behaviour becomes a fact.
There must be serious requirements within the mechanism of ASBOs and behaviour contracts if they are to become the valued instruments that I should like to see. Will the Minister reassure us that the way in which evidence is collected will be examined? The matter must be approached cautiously. The method by which evidence is collected is seriously bureaucratic and takes a long time, which inhibits the speedy reaction that we had hoped would be achieved from ASBOs. I want effective guidance to be given to the police force, social services and social housing bodies to persuade them to provide evidence more speedily.
I reiterate that gaining court time is seriously undermined. People are waiting for months before they can present their case to the magistrate. That situation must be examined if we are to have an appropriate rapid reaction. A crucial adjunct to that is what happens when a breach of order has taken place and the ASBO returns to the magistrate's court to be re-examined. The order is often considered by different magistrates, who do not have a full understanding of the original case. Those proceedings inevitably result in a supervision order, at which the police just throw up their hands. They feel distraught because, after they have put so much work and time into the case, the magistrates merely grant a supervision order. The Minister has two options: either she must require the magistrates who considered the first case to consider the breach of order, or she must allow a comprehensive, detailed report of the first case to be given to the second set of magistrates, so that they have a full understanding of why the order was made in the first place.
We are witnessing more proactive local authority involvement in some of our communities. Community strategy plans and neighbourhood renewal plans have been set up. Is the Minister persuaded that councils should involve ASBOs in those plans? If we are to use renewal and strategy plans, whereby communities will have a future, those will be achieved only in a stable and safe environment in which ASBOs are included.
I do not think that good practice is being networked throughout the country. Such action is long overdue. We need people to know why West Mercia police manages to get ASBOs put in place in a month. How does it manage to do so when my police force takes much longer? Good practice gives people courage; it gives them the support and knowledge that they require to use ASBOs more effectively.

11WH
Will the Minister consider an offshoot? Parts of Stockton have an on-street warden scheme. It is a support to the police services. The wardens walk about. They are well known. They are uniformed and are recognised as a valuable source of security support to the neighbourhood. I accept that the White Paper suggested extending the involvement of different groups such as providers of social housing to ASBOs, but has the inclusion of warden schemes been considered?
Antisocial behaviour inevitably requires a seriously challenging, robust approach to be taken by us all. Our mailbags are full of letters. The chief constable of Cleveland has walked with me around my patch and has seen the intimidating behaviour and the threats posed by youngsters. It is a colossal problem. We are seeking resolutions. A more flexibly handled ASBO, with the appropriate finances, that includes others in a multi-agency approach will give a more speedy delivery. Will the Minister consider such a valuable add-on, which will reduce young people's antisocial behaviour, certainly in my constituency?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It is appropriate to offer an admonishment to the Chamber. It is common practice in a 90-minute debate for the two Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople and the Minister to start their winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the debate is to conclude and that the timing is equitably disposed of in three 10-minute speeches. As we have a little more time than that before 11 o'clock, I appeal to the three hon. Members who wish to speak to bear in mind such practice.
10.22 am
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. I agree that it is most timely. As a new Member of Parliament, I have to concur with more experienced hon. Members that antisocial behaviour is the main issue that faces us. That is despite the fact that I represent a constituency in the south, which, according to some stereotypes, does not have a high deprivation factor. It straddles urban and rural areas. In fact, one third of it is rural. There are just as many antisocial behaviour problems in the villages as there are in the built-up areas. The diversity in antisocial behaviour is striking; that is important to bear in mind when considering how to deal with it.
I preface my comments by saying that I am absolutely determined to tackle antisocial behaviour. I sympathise greatly with elderly people and others who are frightened and suffer enormous stress because of what is happening around them. We must get to grips with the problem. It is diverse and it is difficult to assess its severity; what one person might describe as outrageous behaviour, another might regard as high spirits. Perceptions vary among areas. Those huge variations in perception, locality and manifestation highlight the importance of the Government's initiative for crime and disorder strategies and partnerships, which are important because of their local focus.
12WH
Today's focus is on antisocial behaviour orders nationally. I agree with the principle of antisocial behaviour orders, but I find it difficult to make sweeping statements about them that apply to the entire country. Are they a measure of last resort? How early should they be introduced? Parliamentary questions sometimes seem to contain a presumption that an increased use of ASBOs is good. Is that true statistically? Last year, the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs cited Wrexham, where only one order had been made, but the real success was the 1,500 incidents that had been resolved through partnership working, before the red card was used. The threat of the sanction was probably an effective deterrent. In a moment I shall discuss Islington and acceptable behaviour contracts—another example where good practice is taking place and few orders are being made. Equally, an increase in ASBOs may mean simply that there is more antisocial behaviour, not that we are tackling it more effectively. I urge caution in taking an approach that results in a record number of such orders.
I am aware from my local experience of the bureaucracy and expense involved and of the fact that we need a weapon in our armoury. I welcome examination of how such orders are implemented. An excellent suggestion was to examine good practice and whether orders might be secured more quickly under existing provision.
The Liberal Democrats would like to examine the proposals carefully, using evidence on the effectiveness of ASBOs. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on the full study that I believe was due to be published. I am slightly worried about our extending something if no robust evaluation is available. Perhaps there is such an evaluation. If so, I should be pleased to hear about it.
I do not know the breakdown of the number of ASBOs as regards those that applied to young people and those that applied to adults. Different circumstances have been described today, and I am worried that a single instrument is not the best approach. I would welcome a review, which the Liberal Democrats would consider extremely carefully.
We are impressed with acceptable behaviour contracts, which are flexible, cheaper than ASBOs and can be used earlier. The practice in Islington seems to have been excellent and is now spreading, including, indeed, to the authority in my constituency. Both the council and the police find them helpful because, if nothing else, they help gather the evidence for ASBOs, and thus have an interim use, if not a final one. I like the fact that the approach is incremental and that the contracts make children and families take responsibility. A strong link has been made with housing. Fear of losing a house has, I believe, made the contracts work and has made parents wake up. Young people should take responsibility for and ownership of their actions. The use of such contracts has been extended.
The approach is not so much like the armoury that I mentioned earlier; I view it as a toolkit. We have several tools, all of which need to be used in the right sequence. Hon. Members have discussed the importance of community and individual initiatives. I confess that I have bombarded my local police with issues relating to antisocial behaviour to such an extent that they have looked around the country, which is good.

13WH
I had passed to me details of a junior referral scheme that operates in Lancashire. We now have the Poole Operation Guardian. The scheme has incremental stages, which involve, first, going out and talking to young people; secondly, taking their name and address; thirdly, sending parents a letter, and so on. That incremental approach is important, but it needs to be resourced.
Auditing, trailing and monitoring antisocial behaviour are equally important.
Mr. Randall: I am very interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that one problem seems to be lack of knowledge on the part of the various agencies involved about what avenues are available to them? Guidelines on increments, especially in the case of, for example, housing associations, whose staff are not trained to deal with such problems, would be useful.
Mrs. Brooke: That is absolutely right. We are dealing with multi-agency shared practice. Many of the jigsaw pieces are available. I congratulate the Government on those pieces, but they are not all clicking in to make an entire picture.
We must not limit our discussions to antisocial behaviour orders, which are a single instrument. I accept that that instrument may have to be used, but we must take more positive action, too. Although ASBOs tackle behaviour, we should consider lower levels of intervention before we reach that stage.
I agree that we need neighbourhood renewal. Along with all positive measures, I am interested in neighbourhood warden schemes, a trial of which is being introduced in my constituency. The package involves school, integrated pastoral care, exclusion policies, family support and community facilities. The range is enormous. I hate to say it, but the approach ultimately relates to resources, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said. One of our police superintendents told us what a difference small sums would make in implementing a crime and disorder strategy, such as £250 handed to a local group that raises money itself for its own purposes. People do not feel that they have those small sums. Will the Minister consider that point?
I recently spoke to representatives of the youth offending team, and some brilliant work has been initiated in providing parenting courses, of which there are many in my constituency. The Youth Justice Board has provided additional funds for a pilot scheme involving the introduction of parenting schemes at the point of changing schools—age 11 in that area. Such early intervention makes a lot of sense. Strains on local councils have resulted in their cutting back the amount that they put into parenting courses, so instead of additionality we have had replacement. I am sure that there are many such stories. That is a big issue, which needs to be resourced. We must consider all such issues and bring them together.
I mentioned making the jigsaw whole. I am excited about the principles behind Connexions, but much more needs to be done to pull the scheme together. Some of the schemes cover different age bands, and I am worried that there may be gaps. The age band for Connexions is, I believe, 13 to 19, and for YOT, 10 to 18. We need to pull that together.
14WH
As we have seen, an awful lot can be done for the community and families. However, we must not forget the individual, and sadly the issue is one of resources. We hear much about attention deficit disorder. That may be a small part of the cause of antisocial behaviour by individuals, but we need resources to follow through the research.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned mental illness. There is a tremendous shortage of resources to help deal with mental illness in young people. The Liberal Democrats believe that all the issues that I have mentioned are important. We see the matter as a whole toolkit and would like to emphasise that exciting and important initiatives should be resourced properly. I would like my toolkit to follow a positive intervention model, not one of blaming and enforcement. I am realistic and accept that we need this measure, but we must proceed with caution and get it right.
10.35 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I have had the opportunity to speak about antisocial behaviour orders on several occasions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing this debate, which has been similar to many others in that it has contained interesting contributions based on personal constituency experience and the individual ideas of both Back and Front Benchers—as was the case with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on home affairs.
Today's debate is different in one way. The Government's most severe critic from their own Back Benches, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), is absent—no doubt he has other duties. In every other debate on the subject, he made it clear that the Government had got the scheme wrong and that it was far too complex.
We said—more in sorrow than in anger—from the first moment that the Government announced the scheme that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. It is not that we do not share the Government's ambition to deal with antisocial behaviour, as we agree with all those who have spoken that it is the scourge of our law-abiding constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge spoke of the problems in parts of his constituency such as West Drayton and we are all aware of similar areas that have difficulties with such behaviour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge rightly referred to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) who is, like me, an Opposition spokesman for home affairs. In a previous debate, he pointed out some of the things that had gone wrong. However, it has taken a long time—a comment from not only Government Back Benchers but hon. Members of all parties—for the Government to concede that all the warnings that we issued at the start have turned out to be right.
I do not blame the Minister. The hon. Lady brings to her responsibilities professional expertise that she gained prior to entering Parliament. I know that she takes her responsibilities seriously from my experience of dealing with the case of one of my constituents, with which she assisted me and other hon. Members recently.

15WH
She inherited both a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that her predecessors in office got it spectacularly wrong by erecting a bureaucratic nightmare. Everyone who has spoken has mentioned the problems that the police and local authorities face and I will touch on some of the most appalling experiences that senior police officers and local authority officers have recently found in my constituency.
The opportunity is that the Minister has joined the Home Office at a time when the penny has finally dropped that the Government can get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy. I hope that this time they will get it right. I wish 1 had confidence that they would cut through all of the nonsenses, but I fear that we shall see tinkering rather than genuine action. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that she has every confidence that the Government will get it right. As always, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
I want to talk briefly about what is happening at the sharp end, as other hon. Members have done. I have huge respect for the views held on a range of subjects by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). She spoke powerfully about the difficulties in her constituency, as did the hon. Members for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor).
In my constituency, I have obtained detailed briefing from two people that I know extremely well—Mick Day, the chief inspector of North West Surrey police and Barry Catchpole, the chief executive of Surrey Heath borough council, one of the two councils in my constituency. In all our regular meetings, they have told me about their frustration in efforts to deal with antisocial behaviour. When I heard that this issue had been selected for debate, I asked them to give me detailed briefing on a recent case about which, only 10 days ago, I was receiving calls from national media and having discussions with other police officers.
Chief Inspector Day says:
"I refer to your request for an opinion from the police perspective on the ASBO process.
Recent experience at Surrey Heath in relation to two young men aged 15 & 16 years was a frustrating encounter with the ASBO process. In brief the two young men were committing acts of nuisance and terrorising their local community as well as causing problems in Camberley Town Centre as part of a larger group. Normal policing methods and the justice system had not been effective so a multi agency group decided in February 2001"—
the Minister and hon. Members should note the date—
"to gather evidence for an ASBO application. It took two months to collate the evidence and the complaint was laid in April 2001. The case was listed for hearing in August 2001",
which was already six months later. It was then
"adjourned on two occasions at the request of the"
defendants. The case was
"finally heard in late January 2002",
which is effectively a year later—I know exactly when it was because I started fielding calls from the media a week last Friday, the day after the case was heard.
16WH
Chief Inspector Day says:
"It was therefore almost a full 12 months to get this application through the judicial process. There are a number of points I would wish to make on this…The collation of evidence was an extremely bureaucratic process involving applications to other agencies for little return…Once the complaint had been laid the length of time to hearing was unbelievably long and frustrated the desire to provide relief to the local community who were the victims of these young men…It is worthy of note that in the interim one of the young men received a custodial sentence, perhaps this could have been avoided had the ASBO process been slicker and more effective…Partner agencies are reluctant to support the process because of the bureaucracy and time involved."
Who can blame them?
"What is needed is a process which is responsive to address anti social behaviour quickly and effectively. ASBO in the current climate do not provide that response and the public feel that agencies are not being responsive to local problems…In summary the whole process is a frustrating bureaucratic nightmare."
Those strong words are used by one of the most effective senior police officers that it has been my pleasure to work with and I have been working with senior police officers all my professional life—I qualified as a barrister in the late 1970s and have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 10 years. I have worked with police officers in all parts of the country. I have been a shadow Minister with responsibility for home affairs for nearly three years.
Chief Inspector Day is not someone whose words can be dismissed. He does not use them lightly. He is respected throughout north-west Surrey, not only in my constituency, as an old-style traditional police officer who is nevertheless receptive to new ideas and thinking. He was born and brought up in my constituency and is a real, seat-of-the-pants police officer, respected in all the jobs that he has done from ordinary police constable to chief inspector. I have regular meetings with him and know that his strong words should be taken seriously.
The chief executive of my local authority states that there is a
"disproportionate need for huge resources from many different public bodies over several months during which time the offender is still disruptive.
Ordinary members of the community often decline to provide evidence as their identity cannot be kept confidential and they are fearful of reprisals. Such fears are well-founded given the nature of the people against whom the Orders are sought.
As always the offenders are very informed as to the processes and abuse this knowledge to the detriment of the community."
That sentence is relevant to the correct comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about lack of respect for police officers.
The chief executive continues:
"At Surrey Heath Borough Council our first case was due for hearing in September but was deferred for two months as one of the "defendants" had been arrested the day before the hearing. During the two month delay the offenders continued to terrorise their communities and no quicker option was available. Later hearings were deferred as the offender was in Feltham Young Offenders Institute."
The chief executive also refers to the cost of the process:
"This hardly matches the aim of a quick simple system and is very costly to the taxpayer. This is seen as excessive by the communities against whom the anti-social behaviour is aimed."

17WH
The chief executive also draws attention to how long the process took and expresses concern that the court did not allow the names of the defendants to be publicised. One is always concerned about publicity with regard to juveniles, but that issue should be debated and I ask the Minister to comment on it.
Representatives of the media applied for reporting restrictions to be lifted. Although the police inspector who dealt with the case supported the application, it was not granted. I am not challenging the principle that the courts should decide such matters but, as the Government are reconsidering these provisions, the publicity issue should be addressed.
Finally, on the important issue of the involvement, or lack of it, of parents, which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge also raised, the chief executive of my local authority, Barry Catchpole, states:
"Throughout the 4 day hearing neither parents attended court in support of their children, and the court did not act on that position."
He also rightly comments that
"parental responsibilities are paramount in making this process effective and where not voluntary the court should be looking to issue Parenting Orders to assist in keeping young people to the ASBO conditions.
Local courts are not comfortable with the process, make life unnecessarily difficult for the agencies to even get to court and then the judges are reluctant to make Orders and are overtly critical of the agencies."
That is the case even in the extreme circumstances that we are discussing.
I wish the Minister to respond to what happened in the example that I have described. I state, more in sorrow than in anger, that we warned the Government when they set up this process that that would happen and it has. The system is not working properly and we want the Government to ensure that their replacement for it is a huge improvement.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing the debate, and to all hon. Members who have spoken for their constructive contributions. They have described their experiences, and it is clear that they have been motivated to speak by a desire to make the system work, because they recognise that antisocial behaviour orders are an important part of what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) referred to as a toolkit of measures. I was going to describe it as a package of measures, but toolkit is a good word, because it conveys what we have tried to achieve, which is to offer a menu of options to tackle antisocial behaviour, of which antisocial behaviour orders are one.
There are many types of antisocial behaviour, such as graffiti, intimidation, verbal abuse and prostitution. As hon. Friends have mentioned, there is also antisocial behaviour that is related to drug abuse. All hon. Members deal with such behaviour in their constituencies, so they are aware that it reduces people's
18WH
quality of life and creates fear and intimidation. The Home Office is heavily engaged in the battle against serious crime, but I assure hon. Members that the Government are equally committed to tackling antisocial behaviour and the problems that it causes for communities.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced antisocial behaviour orders, as well as child curfews and a range of other changes, to the youth justice system. It also established the crime and disorder partnerships, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for mentioning that initiative because, although it is important that the Government should provide the tools that enable such partnerships to tackle the problems in their areas, it is also important that the partnerships should be allowed to identify the issues to be prioritised in their areas, and to apply the measures to tackle them in the most effective way.
Partnerships must focus on antisocial behaviour. They are now required to audit that as well as crime, and to develop a strategy to deal with it. It is important that partnerships focus on antisocial behaviour not only because of the quality of life issues to which I and many hon. Members have referred, but because such behaviour is a potential risk factor with regard to crime. Recent research confirms that there is frequently a link between antisocial behaviour in childhood and more serious criminal offending at an older age.
The antisocial behaviour order is a civil order made by a court. It is designed to address persistent antisocial behaviour. Individual incidents of such behaviour might not reach the required threshold of seriousness, but they will if they are taken together over a period. Such persistent behaviour has a corrosive effect on victims and communities. However, although antisocial behaviour orders are civil proceedings that require a civil standard to be met with regard to proof and rules of evidence, breach of an antisocial behaviour order is a criminal offence that must, therefore, be proved to that standard of evidence.
Between April 1999 and September 2001, 466 antisocial behaviour orders were granted. However, as several hon. Members have mentioned, we should not address the issue as if it were simply a numbers game. Although we want antisocial behaviour orders to be used—and to be used more often where they are applicable—the fact that they are available, and that they have been used, has had a deterrent effect. Important points have been raised about the use of measures such as acceptable behaviour contracts to prevent young people—and some adults—from reaching the threshold where they could be given an antisocial behaviour order.
Of those 466 orders, 84 per cent. were given to men, 74 per cent. to people under the age of 21, and 58 per cent. to juveniles. About 36 per cent. of antisocial behaviour orders have been breached, and 46 per cent. of breaches have resulted in custodial sentences. Only 4 per cent of applications have been refused, and the fact that so few refusals of applications reach court is of relevance to the case that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown).

19WH
I am aware of the breach case that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), because the leader of her local council raised it with me.
I turn to cost. Although the hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned a figure, these are early days, and I do not wish to be held to any of the sums that I will mention. The results of the review that we have been undertaking suggest that the typical cost of an antisocial behaviour order is £4,800. That includes the cost of the internal solicitor's time, legal work and so on. If breaches and appeals are involved, the average cost of an order is about £5,350. Those figures are based on the experience of authorities.
Agencies that have used antisocial behaviour orders—and some agencies have really got to grips with them—report to us that they are very cost-effective. That is particularly the case when one considers the cost of not dealing with antisocial behaviour.
Ms Walley: What about the costs of having to go out and buy in professional witness statements, where people are afraid and do not want to make statements? It is costly to purchase such professional statements. Will the Minister comment on that?
Beverley Hughes: I take my hon. Friend's point. Several of the costs that I cited would be incurred in such cases, although, clearly, not in all of them. The question of witnesses is an important ingredient in ensuring that we make greater use of ASBOs.
Several hon. Members referred to legislative changes that the Home Secretary announced recently. Those include extending the power of those who may apply for ASBOs to the British Transport police and registered social landlords, which are important developments. The British Transport police want to be able to deal with ticket touting and similar problems more effectively.
Interim ASBOs will help to overcome some of the problems of delay that were mentioned, especially for witnesses. If an interim ASBO is awarded quickly, that will give protection to witnesses.
County courts will be empowered to make an ASBO when dealing with cases such as evictions or injunctions in which the reason for the application was antisocial behaviour. The court will be able to link the eviction or injunction to the simultaneous award of an ASBO, rather than having to apply again for an ASBO
We want to encourage the use of travelling ASBOs that will cover a wider area so that a person who moves will continue to be covered by the order.
Ms Drown: I am pleased to hear that the Government are considering using the county court when there is a link between benefit and eviction. Will the Government consider using the county court for cases such as prostitution? I do not know whether such cases
20WH
experience a higher failure rate than other types of ASBO, but if that is the case, will the Government examine that route?
Beverley Hughes: That is outside the scope that the Secretary of State has announced so far. However, I shall take my hon. Friend's comments back to the Department and feed them into the review process.
Hon. Members mentioned the review. We want to see whether we can help bodies to overcome problems by examining the experience of local authorities and police services. I hope that we will produce the review very soon. Issues that should be addressed include guidance and the dissemination of good practice, which were mentioned by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) gave a detailed account of a case that he said was at the sharp end of what is happening. However, I tell him that there are other versions of what is occurring at the sharp end, and there are examples of excellent practice in which agencies—especially the local authorities and the police—have put in resources and worked together.
Manchester established a nuisance strategy group to allow the maximum use of ASBOs. It demonstrated that several factors contributed to the success of ASBOs. The publicising of ASBOs was important. Media coverage and leaflets produced by the local authority helped local people to understand an ASBO. Such communication helps to enforce the order because the community understands the behaviour that constitutes a breach.
The support of witnesses is also important to the success of ASBOs—a point that was touched on several times. Successful partnership working is a further important factor, as is cost-effectiveness, which the authority achieves by ensuring that front-line officers play a central role, rather than always bringing in outside assistance. That ensures that a knowledge base and the ability to work efficiently are bred inside the local authority.
I accept that many areas have found the process bureaucratic, but I do not think that that was inevitable. Agencies that use good practice and cut through bureaucracy have taken a more realistic view of the evidence that is required. Agencies that work quickly together to make a case have shown that bureaucracy need not occur. None the less, the Government want to ensure that when lessons have been learned in one area, they can be learned elsewhere. Hon. Members asked about delay at the court stage, and made suggestions. I will take those points to the Department.
We are planning to help local partnerships to use ASBOs more effectively. Acceptable behaviour contracts, which were mentioned by several hon. Members, are a further important part of the toolkit, and they have been implemented successfully in Islington.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, which I shall feed into the review. We are determined to make ASBOs work, and to help agencies with responsibilities for ASBOs to cut through the problems that were identified today and allow them to use the orders more effectively—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We move on to the next topic for consideration this morning.

Poverty (London)
11 am
Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss issues around the welfare-to-work programme and the Government's agenda for tackling poverty, with particular reference to London.
Before I discuss London, I shall set the debate in context. I support and admire the Government's approach in the past five years to tackling poverty and unemployment. They set themselves the ambitious target of halving child poverty within a decade and abolishing it within a generation, which, as independent organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group have recognised, is unprecedented. The group said, slightly tongue in cheek, that it had been given a stick with which to beat the Government. The strategy is risky but completely right.
The Government correctly identified that poverty is rooted in several factors, rather than being dependent only on a household's individual financial income. They have adopted a bundle of indicators to establish the efficacy of the measures to tackle poverty. That is the context in which investment in public services has been proposed, in addition to area-based regeneration schemes such as sure start, the new deal for communities and the neighbourhood renewal fund. The Government have also introduced the Tax Credits Bill, on which I shall comment in more detail later. They have given extra help to families who are on benefit through a significant increase in the children's element of income support. Additionally, the child tax credit, which is in the next wave of tax credits, will be introduced next year.
Such measures have had a dramatic impact on poverty throughout the country. Independent experts have confirmed that 1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty. The communities on which the area-based initiatives have impacted have warmly welcomed them.
London, however, has not benefited as much as it should have from the national strategy. Over recent years, London has enjoyed significant economic success; it has been a booming city, an exciting place in which to live. Both employment and earnings growth has been very strong, and people who have done well in London have experienced some very happy years. The events of 11 September caused a dip in economic confidence but we seem to be bouncing back from that.
However, alongside the success story is a story of poverty, deprivation and unemployment. Progress has been made but not to the extent of other regions. London continues to have the highest percentage of children in poverty in England. Forty-three per cent. of children are in households with incomes below half the national average. The decline in the number of children in poverty has been smaller than in other regions.

After housing costs are taken into account, a much higher proportion of London's population is in the lowest income band: income below £150 a week. Twenty-nine per cent. of Londoners live in households in that band; 24 per cent. of people are in that band in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Of course, London has a disproportionate percentage of its population in the higher income bands, and that is part of the problem when examining the distribution of
22WH
resources. The polarisation of incomes in London is part of the problem of economic inequality. During the debate in the House on Friday, I described the problem as the tyranny of the average, because it leads to a misleading indicator of the state of London's population.
Median average income—that is, the point in income below which half the population fall—is only 1.5 per cent. above the national average. Not including housing, prices are 5.7 per cent. above average, so the evidence suggests that average living standards are lower in London than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am grateful for that new analysis of the figures, which was produced for the Department for Work and Pensions by the Greater London Authority and the Mayor's Office.
London has a higher proportion of children in workless households than any other region: in some 26 per cent. of households in London there is no adult in employment. Inner London has double the national average of children from lone-parent families, who, as we know, are at the greatest risk of poverty. Since the early 1990s, unemployment in London has consistently been above the British average. Our unemployment rate is the second highest regionally, and is especially severe among black and ethnic minority communities, half of which live in London. The unemployment rate for white Londoners is close to the national average, but the rate for black and ethnic minority Londoners is almost three times the national average.
Some 40 per cent. of the 25 Parliamentary constituencies with the highest unemployment rates in the UK are in London. London's rates of job entry through the new deal are below the national average. Take-up of the working families tax credit, the foundation stone of the Government's welfare-to-work strategy, is lower in London than poverty indicators suggest that it should be. Some 10.2 per cent. of families receive the working families tax credit in London compared with 16.3 per cent. nationally. The disparity is even starker among lone parents: those in London are half as likely to receive the tax credit as those elsewhere in the country. I am grateful to the Association of London Government, the GLA, the Mayor's Office and the House of Commons Library for those statistics.
There is no doubt that we have a serious problem with poverty, deprivation and joblessness in London. I have two purposes in securing the debate, apart from that of putting those facts on the record. The first is to highlight that Londoners need more help to tackle poverty effectively through the employment path and other strategies. The second—I believe that other hon. Members will talk on the subject—is to highlight the fact that aspects of the welfare system are penalising Londoners and must be removed if we are to reduce poverty.
Why is it that, alongside London's vacancies, economic strength and success, there is such a serious problem of poverty and joblessness? Why, with our underlying economic strength, does the take-up of the welfare-to-work programme appear to be less effective in London? I do not fully understand why that is so, although I have some theories. It is time for the Government to carry out serious research to establish the reasons. I ask the Minister to give an assurance on that subject. Whenever we have discussed those issues—

23WH
for example, when considering the Tax Credits Bill—I have been told that the problem is rooted in take-up, and that there is an awareness issue about measures such as the children's tax credit and the working families tax credit.
I do not doubt that take-up is part of the problem. Constituencies such as mine have a high level of social mobility and high population turnover. For many people in houses of multiple occupations, getting the post is a nightmare. Readership of local newspapers is low compared to that in other regions. The multiplicity of media outlets may be exciting but it means that it is difficult to get a message through to people. Also, 130 languages are spoken, so it is especially difficult to reach minority communities, which are among the poorest.
Take-up is undoubtedly an issue, but it is not the only one. The poorer populations of London face structural problems, which means that however much money we pump into take-up campaigns, we will not completely reverse the disparity in the take-up of working families tax credit and in levels of unemployment. It is my assumption that the problem is rooted in joblessness. If we are to cut child and adult poverty—pensioner poverty falls largely under a different category that I am not talking about today—we must get to the heart of the problem of joblessness in London.
Mr. Edward Davey: I support the hon. Lady's request to the Government for a special review and study of the issue. Who would she like to be involved, not just from the Government but from the many other players in London, in order to ensure that the study is effective and is undertaken urgently?
Ms Buck: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right. Communities have different experiences, and an understanding of the barriers to take-up and participation must be rooted in community experiences. A multiplicity of organisations, including local councils, the London development agency and women's and child care organisations, have an important role to play and should be part of the process. We should listen to them to find out what they regard as problems.
Joblessness in London is at the heart of the problem. It is the reason why Londoners cannot break free from poverty and use the working families tax credit as a stepping stone out of poverty. The welfare-to-work strategy, in all its forms, is not working as well in London as it is elsewhere. That is not a criticism of the programme or its policies, which I back 100 per cent. It is an argument for a more focused look at why the strategy is not as effective in London.
Let us take the example of the new deal. Figures provided by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion show that the job-entry rate through the new deal in London is below the national average, with central London districts such as mine and, I am sad to say, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) performing particularly badly. That is partly because London handles a high proportion of unemployed people with multiple disadvantages, including those who have
24WH
experienced homelessness, the prison system, mental health or drug problems and those with literacy or language problems. The Government could do more to address that important issue.
The agencies of delivery, particularly the Employment Service, have a disproportionate difficulty in recruiting and retaining the staff necessary to guide those with multiple disadvantages through support programmes and into work. If the new deal and Jobcentre Plus are to deliver to Londoners and contribute to cutting poverty through work, extra resources will be needed to pay personal advisers better in order to retain them longer.
I regularly go to my local Employment Service and sit in on interviews. I am saddened by the fact that good people do not stay. They move in order to earn more, and I do not blame them; they are not paid terribly well. We need to keep people of especially high quality in London, so that we can use their skills to develop properly tailored packages for the people who need them, especially lone parents.
We need to overcome the barrier of child care. The proportion of lone parents in the capital is much higher than in the rest of the country. I am grateful to the Library for its excellent research on the subject. Lone parents are much less likely to have family support networks that provide informal child care. Only 18 per cent. of pre-school children in inner London are looked after by grandparents compared with 34 per cent. across the country. The need for child care is greater, particularly for lone parents, yet the provision of affordable child care is significantly lower.
Although there have been improvements in recent years—the national child care strategy is a welcome development—the Daycare Trust said last Friday that the imbalance between quality child care places and need was particularly severe, with a place for fewer than one child in seven. Last summer, the Daycare Trust carried out an analysis of day care costs and found a shortfall between the cost of child care in London and the subsidy from the working families tax credit: it is £40 a week for a nursery place and £33 a week for a child minder, which is £6 or £7 more than in the rest of the country. We must accept that the cost of providing nurseries in London is far greater, especially in respect of capital costs and recruitment and retention of child care staff. Unfortunately, the flat-rate child care component in the working families tax credit, which will be carried through in the new tax credits legislation, will not be enough to allow parents, particularly lone parents who want to enter the workplace, to access child care.
Some evidence—it is mostly anecdotal but it is supported by the Daycare Trust—shows that the child care component of the working families tax credit is leading to some perverse incentives in London and elsewhere, whereby the costs of child care are ratcheted up to the level of the working families tax credit supplement. In my constituency some people in need have lost places as an unintended and perverse consequence of working families tax credit. Welcome as the child care component is there is no substitute for a dramatic extension of child care places, which will have to be funded by capital. Otherwise, there will be child

25WH
care inflation and we will never catch up with it. Access to child care places remains inadequate and needs further development.
Housing costs have been endlessly debated in this Chamber and elsewhere by others and by me. London is engulfed in a housing crisis with three times the level of overcrowding than in any other part of the country. A significant increase in the number of families in temporary accommodation is another factor relevant to the poverty and welfare-to-work debate. Families in severe housing need are in poverty. For 60,000 households, the cost of private rented and temporary accommodation makes working impossible. Rents are about £300 a week. It is virtually impossible for people to find work that will pay while they face that housing difficulty. While we continue to try to unlock the housing crisis through supply, it is essential to provide special new deal-type provision for families in temporary accommodation, who are expected, through no fault of their own, to pay prohibitive rents and are unlikely to take up work opportunities.
Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Lady agree that the ceilings on housing benefit, which restrict the rents that attract it, need to be raised?
Ms Buck: I am coming to that matter, which I feel passionately about.
Families in London on income support mortgage interest relief generally face higher mortgage costs than those in the rest of the country, so they face a higher risk of getting into debt if they get a job. The Government have extended the linking rule to mortgage interest relief, which is a positive step. I doubt whether the Minister can answer immediately, but I would like to know whether the extension of the linking rule has helped low-income homeowners to move into work. We must do more to help such people to return to work.
Considerable evidence suggests that good area-based partnerships between local authorities, the private sector, the Employment Service and community organisations have been effective in underpinning welfare-to-work strategies. Employment zones in London have been particularly successful, but there are too few of them. The level of deprivation and poverty in London strongly justifies a further extension of area-based initiatives, including employment zones. It is unfortunate that the Government's index of deprivation—a formula for distributing resources for area-based regeneration initiatives—has recently disadvantaged London. The Association of London Government calculated that under the old formula, we would have been £140 million better off. My hon. Friends and I will continue to press the Government to redress the inadequacies of the index of multiple deprivation.
I am aware that other colleagues want to speak, but I want to finish by emphasising two policy issues that hurt Londoners disproportionately, rather than focusing on the failure to make full use of the welfare-to-work programme. First, council tax benefit restrictions are impacting on households in high-value areas. People did not move there through choice, so they are suffering an unfair penalty. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in more detail later.
26WH
Secondly, housing benefit restrictions in London are particularly difficult for families on low incomes. They have to find £15, £20 or £25 a week out of their own pockets to sustain a tenancy on which a housing benefit restriction has been placed, as has been demonstrated by research in Brent. Housing benefit restrictions are also fuelling the flow into temporary accommodation and homelessness. It is false economics to impose housing benefit restrictions to prevent people in high-value accommodation from being funded by the public purse. Some such provision needs to be made—we cannot afford to subsidise people in penthouses in Marble Arch—but the principle has gone too far, particularly as the supply of private rented accommodation for families on low income has halved in the past five years, causing hardship and fuelling the housing crisis. It is time for action on both those fronts to relieve poverty.
I love London, its buzz and its dynamism. It has been an exciting place to live recently. Population growth and an exciting young multi-ethnic population have driven its success, but we cannot continue to tolerate the scale and intensity of poverty and deprivation in London. It causes hardship, and there is a danger that it will act as a drag on economic success. Getting more people into work is the best means of tackling poverty. There must be targeting of welfare-to-work strategies to ensure that they deliver in the capital.
11.21 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to be called to speak in this short debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing it and on her magnificent speech, which deserves a wider audience. She spoke up magnificently for London.
I shall add a few statistics of my own to the range that the hon. Lady provided, but I shall keep my contribution short because of her comprehensive speech. She is right about the existence of great areas of deprivation in our capital city, which may be concealed by overall statistics. Every London borough has poverty and deprivation. Even wards in my borough include deprived areas sitting cheek by jowl with prosperous areas in the leafy suburbs. An integrated approach is necessary to tackle poverty in London and, indeed, throughout the country.
The hon. Lady properly focused on poverty and people but I am convinced that the problem is accentuated if the environment in which people reside is in a disgraceful condition. I do not exaggerate but parts of our inner cities are an environmental disgrace to any nation that calls itself civilised.
Let me begin with the prosperous borough of Kensington and Chelsea, a royal borough. I understand that two of its wards are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in England and they are next to seven wards that are among the least deprived. That underlines how poverty can be found around the corner from prosperous areas.
I want to draw attention to data collected recently by the King's Fund, which created a sick list by finding out where the most unhealthy areas of the country were and by putting together the first ever league of the nation's 120 health authorities. In that league, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority is 111th and

27WH
East London and the City health authority is 118th, which means that two of the 10 sickest health authorities can be found in our capital city.
I am always interested to receive correspondence from our Mayor, Ken Livingstone. He sends me a lot, as I expect he does to every Member of Parliament who represents London. Like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, he drew attention to the Department for Work and Pensions survey. It is from 1998 and there may be new figures, but these are the most recent that I have. The context is that in any list of regions and household disposable income, London comes top, just ahead of the south-east and the east. The survey shows that, once account is taken of housing costs and household composition, average incomes in London are no higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and incomes at the lower end of the distribution are significantly lower. One frightening statistic that it behoves us all to address is that in our capital city, 5.1 per cent. of the white population is unemployed but no less than 13.5 per cent. of the minority ethnic group population is unemployed.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that black and Asian young unemployed people are less likely to register at an unemployment agency and that those figures underestimate the level of disparity between white and black unemployment in London?
Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I would not presume to say categorically that she is right but I suspect that she is.
Mr. Cook—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do apologise. I took advice and was told to call you by name but that must have changed. My final point is that we must all tackle poverty in a comprehensive and integrated way. That is not a criticism but there is a possible weakness in the Government's strategy for tackling poverty. Much greater interdepartmental cooperation is necessary. I understand that the Government have to divide governance into different Departments but I am slightly concerned that in tackling poverty, interdepartmental co-ordination is not as good as it should be.
11.28 am
Mr. Iain Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate to highlight the problems of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion in London. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate. Her record in promoting the cause of our capital city and its residents is second to none in the current Parliament and one of which she can be rightly proud.
My hon. Friend has already referred to the issue that I want to raise. It is relatively small in terms of the number of people that it affects, although that does not mean that it is not important. The issue is the effect that the council tax benefit restriction scheme has on many of my constituents.
Highly regressive, mean-spirited and vindictive legislation was introduced in 1998 by, I regret to say, Labour Government. Anyone who is entitled to council
28WH
tax benefit has his or her benefit capped at band E. The Government made a welcome concession: anyone in receipt of full council tax benefit when the measure was introduced was given transitional relief. Many of us heralded that protection, and we were assured that the measure's effects would be carefully monitored and open to constant review.
The consultation paper that proposed the introduction of the measure assumed that claimants who owned their properties could release some capital value and make up the difference between council tax benefit and their liability above band E. That assumption begs the question why long-term residents in high capital value areas should be forced against their will to move from home, away from families and friends, while residents in other parts of the country are not so penalised. Research carried out by, among others, the Association of London Government has demonstrated beyond question that the majority of those caught by the measure live in London and rent their accommodation.
The practical effect is that many families on means-tested benefits are forced to suffer because of the geographical location of their accommodation. Current council tax rates in my borough are £1,128 for band E, £1,333 for band F, £1,538 for band G and £1,846 for band H. That means that families living in band F properties in Hammersmith and Fulham who are not protected by transitional relief—those who were not in receipt of full council tax benefit as of 1 April 1998—need to find from their already meagre benefits an extra £205 a year or £4 a week. For a band G household, the costs are £410 a year or nearly £8 a week, and for a family living in a band H property—there are quite a few—the costs are £718 a year or a staggering £14 a week.
That inevitably places families who are already trapped by poverty into a spiral of even greater financial difficulties. In practice, they must choose whether to heat their home, pay their rent or eat and clothe themselves and their families adequately. When I first raised the matter in 1998, we were able to prove beyond doubt that the measure disproportionately affected households in London.
For my local authority, strict criteria govern the allocation of social housing. Applicants on the housing register are entitled to only one reasonable offer of accommodation, and those that refuse that offer are deemed to be intentionally homeless. Nearly all the new affordable housing developments in my borough will be caught by the legislation.
Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning, recently visited a relatively new housing development created by Shepherds Bush housing association in my constituency. Every one of the two-bedroom houses in that development is banded at band F, and larger accommodation at band G. Applicants who may have waited many years for their offer of permanent accommodation are faced with the choice of turning down their only chance of a new home or meeting an extra tax burden that applicants living outside London would almost certainly not face. Similar developments in Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle or almost any other major town and city in this country would not be so adversely affected. The measure is also a major deterrent to anyone who has received transitional relief from 1 April 1998 and wants to return to work.

29WH
It is contrary to the Government's aim of combating social exclusion and promoting welfare for work, and cannot be justified.
From 2 July 2001, arrangements were put in place for local authorities to provide additional assistance to anyone whose housing and council tax benefit is restricted, if they are satisfied that the person in need requires such financial assistance with their housing costs. According to answers to recent parliamentary questions, the Government seem to believe that the new discretion means that they no longer need to monitor the effects of the council tax benefit restriction scheme, which they promised to do when it was introduced in 1998.
That assumption is entirely specious. First, the majority of the financial discretion awarded to local authorities from July to April in this financial year would have to come from already hard-pressed local authority budgets, which are in no position to take on extra burdens. Secondly, only £15 million of the £37.5 million is Government funded. Thirdly, the new hardship fund is entirely at local authorities' discretion, and it does not represent a fair or strategic approach to dealing with poverty. My local authority is considering using it, although—I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North thinks—her two local authorities are unlikely to use it.
The saving to the Treasury as a consequence of the measure is £7 million a year, which is a pathetically small amount of money in terms of the misery that it causes to people who are already struggling in difficult financial circumstances. It adds a further layer of complication to an already complicated system that is beyond the comprehension of many claimants and constituents. It is a Tory measure written by a Tory Government, and it should be consigned to the dustbin by this Labour Government without further delay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I alert hon. Members to the fact that it is common practice during a 90-minute debate to give the two Opposition spokespeople and the Minister 30 minutes to conclude the debate. The 30 minutes is distributed equitably: in three blocks of 10 minutes. Three hon. Members are currently seeking to catch my eye, and little time is left. I therefore appeal to hon. Members to bear that practice in mind when making their speeches.
11.36 am
Andrew Selous: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate. I have the privilege of serving with her on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, and I know that she takes a serious interest in these matters.
I shall begin by saluting the Government's commitment to tackling poverty and disadvantage both in London and elsewhere; their intention is admirable. Significant factors that affect our society mean that those are difficult matters to change in a short time. We know from Department for Work and Pensions figures that between 1994 and 1999 there has not been consistent change in the number of children living in
30WH
poverty. We also know that the number of working-age people in poverty in London and elsewhere has remained broadly constant. One reason why that has happened is because the world of work has changed. The opportunity to earn significant sums of money in the capital is available to some sectors of the population but not to all. The advent of two-earner households has also had a significant impact on income distribution.
I shall be brief because I know that time is short. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North discussed the decline in the supply of private rented accommodation, which is worrying. Private rented accommodation often provides the flexibility that people need in different stages of their lives as they progress in their careers and need to move around, and the Government must take its decline seriously. I urge them to consider schemes by which they can increase the supply of private rented accommodation. Whether that can be done through tax breaks to encourage more private landlords to rent part or all of their houses is for them to consider, but they must consider the issue given the decline in social housing provided by the local authority sector.
As the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North rightly said, it is important that we take an integrated approach to poverty in London. There is an important role, about which we have a heard a great deal this morning, for the Government, there is an extremely important role for local authorities, and there are important roles for community organisations and personal initiatives. She and I visited a deprived area of south-east Amsterdam last week. I was struck by the way in which different community organisations, churches and faith groups were working with local authorities and regeneration project managers. I commend the integrated approach because it provides a personal, one-to-one element that perhaps only community organisations and churches can provide. Such an approach can change lives by turning problems around.
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned ethnicity, which is an important subject given that 130 languages are spoken in London. Like her, I am concerned that the regional call centres advocated by the Department for Work and Pensions to deal with London residents' problems will be situated outside London. We must ensure that their staff have the languages required. I am unsure how we will get speakers of the many languages in London to work in regional call centres outside London. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that.
The roots of poverty in London, as elsewhere, often start to grow in the early years of a child's life, during which they may have been neglected or abused. The shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), recently made a speech in which he discussed a conveyor belt that goes through a sequence of events that often ends in hardened criminality. Shockingly, more than 25 per cent. of children are currently living in single-parent families. As a nation we pay £15 billion a year picking up the costs of family break-up. I suggest that we do more in the capital, and elsewhere, to support families in their early years, which would include both measures such as the working families tax credit and practical help.

31WH
Organisations such as Homestart offer practical advice and help to families on a weekly basis. A couple of hours a week of help that is a phone call away cannot be provided by the state or local authority, but I know from my constituency that such help can change the lives of stressed families with young children. We must see what we can do to help families to stay together because we have the highest level of divorce in Europe, and it is higher in London than in other parts of the country. Anything that we can do to help families stay together is important.
We have discussed getting unemployed people back into work. Work is key because it is the major escalator to get people out of poverty. Having been to the Netherlands with me last week, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will, like me, have been struck by the massive range of organisations that helps unemployed people to get back into work. The Netherlands is a laboratory. Help is delivered on a local basis. Many organisations work alongside the state sector, and I commend that approach to the Government.
11.43 am
Glenda Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate, and join the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) in sincerely congratulating her on a remarkable speech. She produced statistical evidence that shows that poverty in London is severe. It is unnecessary for the rest of us to go through those numbers again.
I endorse the two points that were made by my hon. Friend on the take-up of the working families tax credit. I must place on the record that my constituency is not exclusively inhabited by millionaires. It contains two of the most deprived wards in the United Kingdom, and my borough contains many similar wards. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, pockets of severe deprivation sometimes exist within individual wards. Poverty lives cheek by jowl with wealth. There is a gap in people's understanding of the working families tax credit, how they can apply for it and the benefits that it can bring.
I turn to joblessness. Much of the available work in London is perceived to be seasonal, temporary or part time, so people are reluctant to move from what they regard as a secure benefits system, not least because of the rents that they must pay. They believe that a job will not give them a permanent income and could lose them housing benefit. I admit that my evidence for that is anecdotal but I have heard it several times. The Government should consider that matter.
We heard of the worries that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has about the poverty of the environment, and I strongly agree with him. The particular issue that I would like to discuss is the poverty of aspiration. It is linked to the statistics on unemployment, particularly those relating to ethnic minority groups. However, it is not found exclusively among those groups. In many parts of my constituency, the aspiration not only of young people but of their
32WH
parents is almost nil. Their experience of life, and the facilities that have been offered to them—or, at least, the facilities that they believe that they can access—have been limited for so long that we need to create a targeted programme to begin to break down the barrier of aspiration. To reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, if we do not tackle poverty in London, it will act as a brake on the whole city. That could have far more desperate consequences than a loss of economic vibrancy; it could lead to severe social breakdown.
There needs to be a co-ordinated programme, and I strongly agree with those who have said that the excellent programmes that the Government have set up are not sufficiently interlinked. Only last week, a sure start programme was launched in one of my wards, Gospel Oak. Crèche and nursery facilities are offered there, and mothers were asked what they wanted to know. Representatives from social services, health, and education and from those who tackle crime were present.
Such initiatives are intrinsic to developing a sense of aspiration. We want the best for all our children, the best opportunities for all young people and we want those who have been unemployed to have the opportunity to return to employment to make the best use of their particular and individual abilities. However, there are still too many difficulties for people in patching into Government schemes, which have been set up under a range of titles.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) spoke of Holland as a laboratory, and mentioned the coming together of many organisations to tackle issues. It is extremely difficult for organisations that are in most desperate need of money, including that outside the Government's direct remit—say, lottery funding or the millennium fund—to begin to rekindle a sense of social aspiration. It should be made easier and simpler for organisations from a variety of areas to work together to patch into such funding sources.
Although we have made giant strides in creating a linked-up approach for all Government Departments, there is still too much separation between Departments in tackling these issues. It would not be difficult to link them, and it is essential to do so if we are to tackle poverty of aspiration; it is certainly important if we are to tackle the poverty of the environment. There are situations in my constituency, and, I imagine, in that of every hon. Member in the Chamber, that would not be tolerated in the environment of this building. If we would not accept something, we should expect no one in London to.
The Government will undoubtedly have to look again at the funding that they afford to local authorities in London. A peaceful environment, not besmirched by graffiti and faeces, and in which underpasses are not used as outdoor lavatories, will require funding. Those are not frills or mere externals. Far too many people in the capital have a sense that they are surrounded by an appalling environment because they are worth nothing. That is a root cause for the poverty of aspiration.
I too support the Government for tackling poverty in innovative ways but a great deal more must be done. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass on our wish for a greater link-up between Departments, which could bring a successful outcome in London.
11.50 am
Ms Diane Abbott: I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing this debate.
On the monitors that are scattered about the House of Commons, the debate is entitled, "Poverty (London)". However, that notion would seem tautologous to many hon. Members. Fourteen years after becoming a Member of Parliament, colleagues from other parts of the country are still under the illusion that London has all the jobs and prosperity, and could not know of the poverty of other regions. If this debate places on record that London has as much absolute poverty as anywhere else, and more than some areas, it will have been worth while.
I am not as lost in admiration for the Government's anti-poverty strategies as some of my colleagues. That may be because I am from the more disreputable end of the London Labour party. Hon. Members have spoken about rich areas being next to poor ones in their constituencies; in Hackney, we have poor areas next to poor areas. We have been the recipients of every variety of anti-poverty scheme and regeneration programme: neighbourhood renewal, sure start, the new deal, the new deal for communities—an alphabet soup of initiatives. In my office, I have files in which I put the Government press release each time a new allocation of money for a new initiative in Hackney is announced.
I agree that each initiative is wonderful, both in its aims and how it is fashioned. However, we have reached a point where it is time to assess this blizzard of initiatives. In Hackney, I have found that those who obtain funding for such initiatives are often those who are good at obtaining funding, rather than good at delivering programmes on the ground.
When I get a press release about a new initiative that has been given money by the Government, I make a point of going to see what is being done. When the staff in my office phone those involved to say, "Diane Abbott wants to see what you are doing with your new deal for communities money," there is a great deal of nervousness at the other end. When I visit, I may find a brand new computer, a new office and consultants who have been taken on using Government money but there is often a paucity of clients.
Without wanting to take anything away from the voluntary sector or from those running the schemes, there is a paucity of human capital for schemes in areas such as Hackney. We need fewer schemes, more co-ordination between them and more attention to be paid to the basic infrastructure that will deliver clients. In Hackney, we have witnessed the almost total collapse of our youth service. We can spend as much money as we like on schemes to deal with issues relating to young people, education and social exclusion, but if there is no youth service to deliver the clientele, such heavily funded schemes will deal with relatively small groups of young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North spoke at length about tax credits. As the Member of Parliament for the constituency with the highest number of single parents in the country, I want to emphasise what she said about the working families tax credit and its low take-up in London. The
34WH
Government are justly proud of that tax credit's effect nationally but, as an inner-London MP, I have found that it has not had the impact on my constituents that I would have liked it to have. I draw attention to my hon. Friend's comment that the take-up rate for single parents in London is half that for single parents nationally.
During the general election, I had cause to contemplate the disparity between what the Government correctly said about the new schemes and the experience of my poorest constituents. There was a mismatch between the bulging files of press releases announcing new Government initiatives in my office and people's perception of what was being delivered. The failure of the tax credit scheme to engage fully with poverty in London accounts for that mismatch.
I would like to raise the impact of asylum seekers, economic migrants and illegal immigrants on the London economy and poverty. Economic migrants have helped to make London a great world city. I use the term advisedly; it is regarded as a dirty word in political debate. My parents were economic migrants. Generations of Irish, Jewish and West Indian economic migrants helped to make London the city that it is. Sadly, the number of asylum seekers has increased because of the closing of avenues to legitimate economic migration. The Government are now examining that.
London boroughs are partially compensated for the services that they have to provide for asylum seekers. However, Hackney, Lambeth, Southwark and other London boroughs with a large number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are not properly compensated for the effects on delivery of service and on poverty. In the medium and long term, those people have a great deal to contribute to London's economy.
My son goes to school just across the border between Hackney and Islington. He is in year five, in a class of about 30. Only a dozen children in that class were there when he started reception. The turnover is such in many inner-London schools that teachers are teaching a different class by the end of the year. Boroughs and education authorities are not compensated for the strain that that causes the education department. Asylum seekers cannot be considered separately in the fight against poverty in London.
The Government pursued a policy of social inclusion for the population as a whole during their first term, but they pursued a policy of social exclusion for asylum seekers through the vouchers scheme. I am glad that they have abolished that.
There is a link between poverty and education and between poverty and crime. The long-term answer to poverty in London lies partly in raising educational achievement. If one examines educational achievement in London, a disturbing pattern emerges. Every year, certain ethnic minority groups fail to raise their achievement. Many ethnic minority groups in London are narrowing the gap between themselves and white Londoners. Some groups do better than white Londoners, but Afro-Caribbean children figure at the bottom of the league table every year, particularly

35WH
boys. That is not a new problem; there have been Government reports about Afro-Caribbean educational underachievement since the 1980s.
Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Lady agree that more male role models, particularly in primary schools, would be useful for young boys if there is no such role model in their family?
Ms Abbott: I agree. I do not want to expand on that point because the debate is about poverty reduction. Whenever a picture of a failing school is shown on television or in a newspaper, it will feature a group of black or multi-ethnic children. Strategies for raising educational achievement have not focused sufficiently on black underachievement, particularly that of black boys. I urge the Minister to tell her colleagues that educational achievement in the inner cities cannot be raised without focusing on the underachievement of black boys.
J. K. Galbraith, the American economist, referred to private affluence and public squalor. Nowhere is that paradigm more obvious than in London. Where private affluence and public squalor exist, so does crime. Poverty is not an excuse for crime but some estates in London—a terrible nexus of poverty, deprivation and low aspiration—are a breeding ground for crime. If we want to avoid a proliferation of street crime and an increase in gun-related crime on the streets of London, we must deal with the issues that have been raised this morning.
12 noon
Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) deserves our thanks for the way in which she has raised the subject. I thought it was one of the most well researched and thoughtful speeches that I have heard in the House. I hope that she will send it to some members of the Cabinet, who should read it. A study of the special issues concerning London is important if the Government want to achieve their targets of halving child poverty by 2010, and abolishing it by 2019.
If the Government are to meet their targets they cannot simply adopt the policies used in the rest of the country. They must urgently get a grip on the special problems in London. That would deal with one of the problems identified by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). People do not believe that poverty is a problem in London, unless they are London MPs or have a focus on London issues. The perception outside London—even in London sometimes—is that it is not a poor city. The success of London masks its major failure. We must hammer away repeatedly at that false perception.
In the first year of the previous Parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Kingston was a leafy borough. That did not go down well in the Cambridge estate in Norbiton, which is one of the poorest wards in the whole of outer London. We have pockets of severe deprivation, even in the royal borough of Kingston. I am sure that that is the case in many other London boroughs.
36WH
When I pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that 43 per cent. of children live in households below the official poverty line—one of the most startling figures on London poverty—the Daily Mail published a sketch that lampooned me. Quentin
Letts asked:
"Is it just another of those political 'facts' that go unqueried?"
Of course, when I wrote to the Daily Mail to put the record straight, it did not publish my rejoinder. That sketch shows that many people, in the media and elsewhere, have a false perception of London. Even though the figures are official and well researched, many do not believe them.
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was right to call for the debate because London is different. The Government have an impressive antipoverty strategy. I do not agree with every tax and benefit change, but the major thrust of the policy is right. Employment measures such as the sure start programme and many other anti-poverty measures are welcome and deserve praise. However, they are not quite up to the task in London. The hon. Lady gave a clear analysis of the problems with the working families tax credit, which is in many ways the flagship of the Government's strategy to tackle poverty. It fails to deal with poverty in the capital, which is so much greater than elsewhere.
The hon. Lady suggested the direction that the Government should take. She rightly talked about employment; several hon. Members touched on the high levels of unemployment in our black and Asian communities in London. That point has come up time and again in my discussions with Ministers and their advisers about the failure of the new deal to have an impact on high unemployment areas throughout the country, not just in London. The new deal has yet to grasp that problem. Studies and pilots are being undertaken to examine the complexity of the problem but they have not produced a solution.
Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington should be taken into account but we need to go further than that in dealing with the issue. When I visited the Employment Service in Kingston during the early stages of the new deal, I was shocked by its lack of drive to get the right people for the right jobs, particularly at the gateway stage. The staff, which had been re-trained to prepare for the scheme, did not have the skills to deal with or knowledge about the problems of some of the people coming to them. They were good people and I do not criticise them but I question whether they were right for the job. As the hon. Lady said, we must tackle unemployment among those groups in the capital. We must ensure that we have the people with the right qualities for the job. If that means paying people more, let us pay more.
As the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, the Government claim that awareness is a vital issue in terms of tax credits. She gave ground to the Government by saying that it is difficult to run take-up campaigns because so many languages are spoken in the capital. However, the issue goes much wider than that. It is about not just awareness but the structure of the tax credit, as the Government like to call the benefit. The Government should look seriously not just at working families tax credits but also at other benefits

37WH
such as regional premiums. That would be a major change in Government policy on social security and I would not advocate embarking on such a change without serious research.
The cost of living in London is higher than elsewhere, yet we have national rates of benefits. We have argued in Parliament for higher housing allowances and a specific London allowance for key public sector workers in London. That is surely relevant to people who are struggling, whether on in-work or out-of-work benefits. If the Government believe that benefit increases across the board is too wide a river to cross, I suggest that they consider the analysis by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North of the costs of child care and consider trials on regional premiums and child care tax credits, which would target some of the capital's problems. The hon. Lady was right to identify the need to look at supply as well as demand.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) made a powerful speech on the problems of the current council tax benefit system and I support all that he said. Many of the examples that he gave also occur in my constituency but my constituents are particularly hit by the shortfall in housing benefits. In advice session after advice session, I see constituents who would like to go into the private rental sector—indeed, I have met private sector landlords who would like to have them as tenants—but who cannot meet the difference between the housing benefit and the actual rent. Their income is not sufficient. It is totally unrealistic to expect them to be able to pay such rents. If we do not overcome that problem, the private sector will not play its part. It is madness to prevent the private rental sector from making a major contribution to the problem. The reform called for by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has come of age.
The sure start scheme is welcome but is targeted on very small areas. Some of its lessons need to be spread more widely, no more so than in London where some of the problems at which the sure start scheme is aimed exist in spades.
12.10 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has rightly won praise from hon. Members of all parties for introducing this fascinating debate and for the range and authority of the statistics that she adduced in a powerful speech. I am pleased to add to that praise. In a previous debate on work and pensions, she cogently talked about the poor take-up of working families tax credit, a point on which she elaborated today. That is an example of the puzzling nature of this subject, which has come out so well in the debate.
If Ministers do nothing else, I hope that they will take seriously our plea for a cool and proper look at what is happening in London and where that differs from other parts of the country. I hope that they will continue to pursue their research into the effectiveness of the various policies. For all the good will that hon. Members of all parties expressed, there was an undertone that some of the policies are not working as well as they might. That applies to other parts of the country, as well as to London.
The debate has been a wonderful way of exploding cynicism about this place. The contributions have been positive, but not always uncritical, including those made by
38WH
Government Members such as the hon. Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). My hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) also made constructive and generous contributions. We should also remember those hon. Members who silently sat in the Chamber, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). The debate deserves wider study.
The growing debate about poverty, which has been well exemplified today, has thrown up several general comments. The subject is still inadequately discussed, for which there is a political and structural reason. In the battle for votes, people tend to concentrate on socioeconomic classes B and C, as those are seen as the core battleground. Insufficient attention is given to people in classes D and E. That may be because they do not vote as often. In London in particular, there is a high level of social and physical mobility and those people are often not around to vote. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington mentioned the change in pupil rolls. The change in electoral rolls is equally kaleidoscopic in London.
I hope that hon. Members will accept that the subject of poverty should not be the prerogative of any one party. I am proud to represent the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli. The Conservative voice has a part to play in the discussion, and we should have such discussions more often.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have acknowledged that the problem is multi-faceted, so it is logical that the policies to tackle it must be multiple and must work together. Several hon. Members have expressed unease that there are so many initiatives that they may trip each other up without achieving much. Ministers have a difficult balance to strike between evaluating their flagship and subsidiary policies, the policies of other Departments, local authorities and the voluntary sector, and ensuring that the orchestra is properly tuned and conducted.
Colleagues have touched on some further outstanding issues. Poverty is a relational as well as a purely functional matter. What has come across strongly in our debate—hon. Members who spend time living or working in London as well as those representing constituencies outside London may not be aware of it—is the sharp differences in economic and social status. Such differences co-exist side by side—not just in north and south Kensington or the City and Tower Hamlets, but also often in individual wards. Some signs of prosperity trickling down into other communities can be seen, but we must ensure that the poorer communities become more self-standing and self-sufficient economically. An effective community voice is also important. Poor communities will not be colonised by areas of affluence.
On the wider economic front, several hon. Members have already referred to the hugely changing economic profile of the capital, particularly following the decline of manufacturing industry. Great joblessness coexisting with a huge shortage of labour is a classic mismatch in the labour market; it is a paradox. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, access to education and skills is a problem. Hon. Members will

39WH
know that I have a longstanding interest in adult literacy. Low self-esteem and lack of basic skills are a huge blight on the prospects of individuals.
The cost of housing was rightly mentioned. It is a major worry for many people struggling to work in key service sector jobs. One subject not mentioned so far is transport across the metropolis—the daily worry about access to work. We read today that the Government's latest proposals for partnership on the tube are likely to lead to few tangible results for several years. These are not just economic factors: they interact with the environment and can actively inhibit regeneration.
Disabled people and pensioners form part of my responsibilities as a Front Bencher. Although not the centre of today's debate, they are relevant. The tube is notoriously unfriendly to disabled people and dial-a-ride schemes often stop at sectoral or borough boundaries. Crime blights everyone. The disadvantaged and socially excluded are probably as blighted, if not more so, than others—for example, when hard-earned family transport goes up in smoke. Young families and older people can feel trapped in poor surroundings with a diminished quality of life and little chance to join the economic world.
All those factors feed into problems with the benefit system. It is partly a problem of take-up, which requires further research. Older people's take-up of the minimum income guarantee has been disappointing. Preserving incentives is another problem when the Government find themselves on the treadmill of ever greater means-testing, which inevitably leads to ever higher and unsustainable marginal withdrawal rates for benefit.
The moral of our debate is that we are at the start of the process of discovery. No easy solutions exist off the shelf. Before the debate, many people were probably indisposed to say that London had a problem. We do not want to over-emphasise it or suggest that everything is wrong in the capital. As the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, many positive aspects of London life should be celebrated. Diversity and vibrancy are part of the equation and we should not view them as problems. We should not, however, sweep away the problems that exist. If we do nothing else, we should all use this debate and its aftermath to reflect seriously on the practical measures that we can take to help. We must remember that the needs must be met and the motivation must come from both inside and outside. We must all feel uneasy about a situation in which those needs co-exist so closely with the signs of success and affluence that are all around us.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): This has been a superb debate. I join in the chorus of praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) for initiating it. It is a shame that it has been restricted to an hour and a half, as we could have talked for much longer.
I should make it clear that as someone who lived in London many moons ago, I am not one of those deluded people who think that there is no poverty in London.
40WH
I have seen it, as has anyone who has lived in London, and it is a simple mistake to think that the bright lights and high incomes extend to every member of the population. They certainly do not, and the Government realise that. London Members will have often come across that mistaken attitude, and they are right to keep saying that poverty affects people who live in London as greatly as anywhere else in the country. They are right also to expect us to address poverty in London as we address it in other parts of the country.
The extent of the poverty that existed in Britain when we came to office in 1997 was one of our biggest challenges. The problem was exacerbated by the policies of the previous Government. During their time in office child poverty doubled and unemployment trebled. Poverty must be a priority. The last Conservative Government did too little to alleviate it. There were problems for pensioners, with widening gaps between the richest and poorest pensioners, unemployment hit 3 million and child poverty was particularly worrying.
Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister give way?
Maria Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have so many points to respond to and so few minutes to do that. I am perfectly happy to discuss the matter with him on another occasion.
We believe in equality and opportunity for all, so we could not be satisfied with that appalling situation and would not allow it to continue. We have set out to tackle it and are determined to continue to do so. As many hon. Members said, it is a complex and multidimensional problem. We must tackle causes, not just symptoms. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have acknowledged the ambition of our aim, which is to halve child poverty in 10 years and eradicate it in 20. We have taken steps to combat joblessness, which is the main cause of poverty among those of working age, and begun to deal with pensioner poverty. Many hon. Members acknowledged in part the success and good progress that we have made so far. It is important to recognise that we are moving in the right direction, and this is where the value of such a debate is shown. Hon. Members have pointed out issues that it is important for the Government to take into account as we develop policies to bear down on poverty.
I want to deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and by others. It will be impossible for me to deal with them all in the time that I have left. If I do not get around to responding to specific points raised by hon. Members, I will of course write to them.
My hon. Friend made a point about the take-up of working families tax credit, which has been echoed by others in the Chamber. People have been puzzled about the disparity between the take-up in London and the take-up elsewhere. Hon. Members asked whether I could promise that serious research would be undertaken into that. Our policies are evaluated rigorously. They are evidence based. We take seriously our commitment to ensure that we make policy on the basis of what works, rather than what we think might work.

41WH
We are looking at take-up and the position of various stakeholders in London. We are carrying out a wide-ranging evaluation programme. Last week, my officials met officials from the Greater London Authority to discuss the problem and they will continue their dialogue with stakeholders throughout London. Such work will continue so that we can learn from the results. We want to know the basis of the problem and how to tackle the important matter of take-up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North referred to aspects of the welfare system that penalise Londoners and that need to be removed. She said that the problem occurred because of joblessness and mentioned some statistics that showed job-entry rates to be below the average. She asked whether problems of recruitment and retention compromised our ability to deliver. We are committed to building on the success of the new deal. Offices in the Benefits Agency and in job centres concentrate on London's recruitment and retention difficulties, but there is no evidence that that compromises our ability to deliver the programmes. That is not the problem but one of the biggest issues is to assist the many people in London who face multiple deprivation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) have referred to issues in respect of their constituents. Helping the hardest-to-help groups is more difficult. We are developing policies, particularly the new deal, to tackle the many difficulties faced by groups that are harder to help because they suffer multiple deprivation, whether they are disabled people or people from ethnic minorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, not all ethnic minorities suffer such problems. Therefore, we cannot say that the problem is one of discrimination or of ethnic minorities finding it harder to access the jobs market. It is not that simple.
42WH
We are continuing to develop our programmes and to target those who are hardest to help. However, the programmes are difficult to design and to evaluate. That is why, for example, the new deal for disabled people and the initiatives to help ethnic minorities and partners are behind the new deals for young people and for the long-term unemployed, which are successful. We know what works. We apply that and see the results. It is more difficult with harder-to-help groups, but to tackle the issue successfully and to get people back into work—the main way out of poverty—we must ensure that we get the more defined programmes right. Clearly, that will have an impact in London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said that, in London, there is a much higher number of lone parents and less informal child care. She referred to perverse incentives and said that child care credit perhaps led to increases in fees that soak up the extra money that is available. We have no substantive evidence that the child care credit is forcing up the price of child care, although all of us have come across anecdotal evidence of that.
We need to keep a close eye on what is happening. We are examining the costs of formal child care. The working families tax credit limits are not set in stone. We continue to listen to representations in that respect. Indeed, we responded to representations in the previous Budget by raising the limit. We want people to keep talking to us about the matter, although I am not sure about the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about regional premiums, which would be a nightmare from an administrative point of view. Of course, we must continue to listen to what works.
I am afraid that I am about to run out of time, and I have not managed to get through half the points that were made by hon. Members. I shall write to hon. Members whose points I have not addressed and no doubt we will continue the discussion in the Tea Room.

Policing (Mid-Surrey)
12.30 pm
Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs for attending the debate, in which I proposed to draw his attention to funding for police in Surrey, the increasingly overstretched nature of the local force and the growing worries of many of my constituents.
I shall start with a positive point. Surrey has the good fortune of being an area that enjoys one of the lowest levels of recorded crime per head of population in Britain. My constituency of Epsom and Ewell is a low-crime area in a low-crime county, as I am sure that the Minister will tell me. However, it is easy to look at headlines and spot an area that is not a problem and put it at the bottom of the priority list when considering next year's budget and resourcing. That is happening to Surrey and I ask the Minister to think more carefully about Surrey's future police resourcing. That attention is needed not only because of the internal issues within Surrey that I will describe, but the international practicalities of having the two largest airports in the United Kingdom on our doorstep. If there is a major incident at Heathrow or Gatwick, Surrey police inevitably form a major part of the response. The Minister's decisions on funding in Surrey have a direct impact on the ability of the emergency services to deal with major events quickly and effectively, should the unthinkable happen.
Surrey is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to funding. In a recent written answer, the Minister kindly provided me with details of the grant per capita provided by the Government to forces throughout the country. Surrey's per capita grant in the current financial year is £77.04. The force area that receives the next lowest amount is Dorset, which receives £85.83. By comparison, Northumbria receives almost twice as much—over £140 per head—despite lower living costs for officers in that area. Surrey has one of the few forces in the country in which the number of officers is falling.
The relative support that the Home Office provides to Surrey has worsened considerably in recent years. Since 1997–98, Essex police have received a 20 per cent. increase in grant funding, Thames Valley police a 22 per cent. increase, and Hampshire police a 23 per cent. increase. Surrey has had a 1 per cent. cut in grant funding.
This year, the Government have announced a small increase of 2.3 per cent. for Surrey in the coming financial year. However, there has been a 4.9 per cent. increase in Surrey's cost base, which was largely made up of an extra 3 per cent. for police pay and additional costs for police pensions. All that means that the funding squeeze on police in Surrey has become tighter.
What are the consequences on the county of the funding squeeze? To start with, they are structural. From January, the force has had to streamline its operations from seven divisional headquarters to four. That means that fewer senior officers have operational roles. An example from my constituency is that Epsom always had its own local superintendent, but it no longer does. Our local police must now report to the divisional headquarters of a superintendent in Staines, which is a considerable distance from the town. However, the
44WH
previous report by the inspectorate cited that one of the Surrey force's few weaknesses—the report was otherwise glowing, which does great credit to senior officers and those on the ground—was that local knowledge in control centres was rated as "poor" by operational staff. A financial process that creates a tighter structure with fewer operational centres can only make that worse.
In my constituency, Epsom police station's custody suite will now be open for only part of the week, rather than the entire week, to save money. Officers will have to transfer prisoners to Reigate, which is perhaps 10 miles away. That development is especially worrying in view of the changed nature of Epsom town centre, which is one of those centres on the fringes of London that are increasingly becoming dominated by pubs, clubs and restaurants. Unruly behaviour on Friday and Saturday nights is becoming worse and there are signs of violence that would have been unthinkable not so long ago. Only a few weeks ago, there was a serious stabbing outside a club in the town. Considering such developments, my guess is that in the years ahead Epsom town centre will become more rather than less difficult to police.
The Surrey police are scaling down their responsiveness to 999 calls, as they very publicly announced a few weeks ago. From now on, only calls that meet clear criteria will receive a response. For example, police will refuse to attend burglar alarms in the absence of clear signs of activity on a property. In fact, the problem is much worse than that. Already the pressures on front-line officers in dealing with 999 calls are manifesting themselves. Several of my constituents contacted me to express anxiety about how difficult it is to receive a 999 response to all but the most significant incidents. In one case a few weeks ago, a gentleman in my constituency had his car vandalised by a gang of local youths. He knew who they were. He contacted the police and asked for an officer to come round immediately, but he did not receive a response for a couple of days. That is an operational issue for Surrey police, but it reflects the day-to-day pressures on officers, which manifest themselves in the first signs of a service that is poorer than my constituents would choose to receive.
Officers' pay is an issue not only for the police in Surrey but throughout the south-east. Officers in Surrey are paid perhaps £6,000 a year less than their counterparts just over the border in London, who have the advantage of London weighting. There are signs that Surrey is losing officers to the Met, which is aggressively expanding its rolls. Such officers go because they can earn a bit more money for travelling not very far. The Minister needs to be mindful of that trend in the next few months, as there is a danger that force levels outside London will suffer as a result of the drive to recruit in the Met.
The crime figures for Surrey do not sufficiently reflect the increase in antisocial behaviour in the county and the social upheaval that it creates. We already know about the impact of such behaviour in inner-city areas. We must not allow it to take hold in suburban and country areas as well.
Against that background, I cannot praise Surrey officers on the ground highly enough for the commitment that they bring to the job and for their work in keeping crime figures down. They do an

45WH
excellent job. However, in dealing with the growing menace of antisocial behaviour, there simply are not enough of them to provide adequate protection for my constituents and people throughout mid-Surrey.
I shall describe some of the incidents that take place every week in my constituency and with which the police simply do not have the numbers to cope. One case involved a woman who ran a small upholstery business in a building adjoining Banstead station. Her premises were probably originally the offices for an old coal yard—a detached building in the middle of the station forecourt. She has been there for nearly 30 years, but she is now leaving, having been terrified by a group of teenagers who, day after day, week after week, would vandalise her building and harass her in her place of work, banging on the side of the building and smashing windows while she cowered inside. Inevitably, before the police could come, they had melted away into the surrounding area. When one night they forced their way into her building, through strong iron bars, smashed up the inside and wrecked her business, she decided that enough was enough. She is on her way. None of that ever showed up in the crime figures. It might have showed up as a one-off, but the figures did not reflect the harassment that that woman faced week after week.
A second case involves a gang that has systematically vandalised Ashtead station in the past year. They hung around on a Saturday night, covered the walls with graffiti, jumped on trains, wrecked carriages and stopped off to commit acts of vandalism at various stations along the way. My local beat constable has done sterling work in trying to tackle the problem.
All credit to Surrey police. On a couple of occasions they have mounted operations to remove the ringleaders, but that has not solved the problem of that gang and others from all over the county going up and down the railway line on a Friday and Saturday night causing damage near the stations. The resources do not exist in Surrey to mount a systematic campaign to deal with the problem. The reality is that one or two local officers are confronted by a gang of 30 young people, who basically say, "Up yours!" Those officers cannot deal on an operational basis with such problems.
Very little of what the gang does will show up in official crime figures, but the fear that it causes is real. The bulk of our law-abiding teenagers, who live in one of the safest areas in Britain, as the Minister would tell us, are afraid to walk around Ashtead after 6 pm because of the gang. Gang members cause damage and harass commuters and young people in the area.
A similar problem occurred in Stoneleigh broadway, where another gang has harassed shopkeepers and committed acts of vandalism for months. In the past couple of weeks, the gang's activities have stepped up a gear and it committed an unpleasant assault on a local shopkeeper—an example of antisocial behaviour turning into criminality. Other incidents in my constituency involve shopkeepers on Tattenham corner and some of the smaller parades.
There are now widespread reports that the gang culture that has grown up in suburban areas is beginning to attract youngsters from the cities and other parts of the south-east who are looking for a Friday night session of vandalism and violence. That is especially true
46WH
of the areas along the railway line in my area—as it is for others, I suspect. It is easy to jump on a train, cause trouble and get away quickly.
To some degree, the problem is showing through in crime figures. If the Minister studies the incidence of recorded crime in Surrey, he will see that criminal damage rates are now much higher than in other counties, especially in rural areas. The same is true of drug offences and, more worryingly, violent crime. For example, in Surrey there are three times as many acts of violence against the person as in Warwickshire. Therein lies the rub for the Minister. Surrey is a low-crime area that lies alongside the high-crime area of London. I understand that it has not been a priority for the Home Office. However, if the financial squeeze on Surrey police makes it impossible for them to deal with the rising problem of antisocial behaviour, we risk the tougher battle fought in the inner cities being brought out to the suburbs and a broader area of society, which cannot be desirable.
I have two requests for the Minister. First, although I do not expect him to get out his cheque book for long-term funding here and now, when his Department reviews future funding requirements for forces, will he reconsider Surrey's case and ask whether we merit such a low settlement in comparison with other counties? My second request concerns antisocial behaviour and vandalism on the railways. I have already discussed with the chief constable the possibility of mounting a systematic campaign this spring and summer to try to stamp it out once and for all. Inevitably, on a tight budget the chief constable does not easily have the resources to do that. Does the Home Office have discretionary funds? Can Surrey police, together with British Transport police and the railway companies seek the resources to mount such a campaign from the Home Office?
In the past couple of generations, we have seen a steady erosion of standards of behaviour throughout too much of our society. Too often, it has led to criminal activity. Crime rates today are much higher than when our parents were children. In Surrey and similar parts of the country, the trend is not the massive social problem that we face in many of our inner cities, but we cannot afford to ignore it. I do not want to return in five or 10 years to try to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Police in Surrey need sufficient resources to stamp on the unwelcome trend in antisocial behaviour. I fear that they are far too thinly stretched at present because the overall crime figures give a veneer that all is well. Surrey police deserve the credit that they get for their work from the police inspectorate and the public, but the pressure on resources is already making the service that they offer a little ragged around the edges. The Minister can help to change that, and I urge him to do so
12.45 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): First, 1 congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate on policing in mid-Surrey. It gives us a good opportunity to air local concerns and allows me to outline what the Government and the police are doing to reduce crime further and make Surrey a safer place in which to live.

47WH
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I chide him a little. He spoke about declining standards of respect and behaviour in society. He is a member of the Conservative party, which told us not so long ago that there was no such thing as society. If we had not gone through such a long period of dismantling the things that make our society cohesive, we might not face some of the problems that we do. Let us not forget that, according to the British crime survey, which is generally regarded as the most authoritative measure of crime—a better measure than reported crime—in the year up to April 2001 the chance of being the victim of crime in England and Wales was at its lowest since the survey began in 1981.
I do not dismiss the seriousness of the incidents that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, nor do I deny that there are significant problems still to be faced and overcome. However, the surveys do not reflect his description of everything falling apart around our ears. I shall consider some of his arguments before I cover financial and staffing issues.
It is true that Surrey has relatively little crime and has experienced falls in crime. Even recorded crime fell by just less than 1 per cent. in the 12 months to last March, and it has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since 1995. Both those statistics exclude the effects of the boundary changes. The detection rate for crime in Surrey for the past year was 28 per cent., compared with 25 per cent. in the south-east region, which suggests that the police are doing a good job.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about antisocial behaviour. Of course it is important to have more police on the beat to respond to crimes and I shall talk about the Government's reform program in that regard. Most antisocial behaviour and vandalism of the sort that he describes requires—and the police deserve—a partnership between the police and local authorities and other agencies. His local authority should have an antisocial behaviour co-ordinator, who should work with the police to ensure that full use is made of the antisocial behaviour orders, curfews and legislation that the Government have introduced to tackle the problems.
The Police Reform Bill will both simplify and extend the scope of antisocial behaviour orders to make them more flexible. One of the changes will enable the British Transport police to seek antisocial behaviour orders. That will be of significant use against those who are behaving on trains or at stations in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I hope that he will welcome those moves.
The hon. Gentleman asked about resources. There is no central pool of funds for antisocial behaviour work, but just as we have had a crime reduction program this year, next year we will have a safer communities initiative, which will fund priority crime reduction activities in local areas. For some of the problems that he describes, money from the communities against drugs initiative can be used, which crime reduction partnerships and local authorities will have received. That can be used to fund policing activities or deal with the consequences of drug misuse, or for closed circuit
48WH
television. A range of funds that did not previously exist is being made available to communities to help to tackle those problems.
Let us consider the wider issues. We recently debated next year's police settlement in the House. There was a 6.1 per cent. overall increase in provision for police spending through Government grants in England and Wales, which builds on a 10.1 per cent. increase in the current financial year. That is good news. Surrey police were allocated a Government grant of £82.9 million—an increase of 2.4 per cent. on the current financial year. On one of the more discretionary matters, I decided to continue to pay the costs incurred by the Metropolitan police boundary changes in April 2000 for another year. Therefore, Surrey police will receive an additional £800,000 to meet those costs in 2002–03.
Aside from discretionary decisions of that sort, the distribution of grant is intended to reflect the relative needs of forces. The formula is weighted so that forces that serve larger populations receive more money. It also takes into account the socio-demographic nature of the population. Surrey is fortunate because it has experienced a large decrease in young male unemployment, which is a significant indicator in the formula that establishes the likelihood of crime taking place. It has also had a lower than average increase in resident and daytime population. That is reflected in the grant distribution for the current year.
The 2.4 per cent. increase in grant is not the only additional money that Surrey will receive this year. It will receive a further £3.3 million from the crime fighting fund to meet the costs of recruiting extra police officers, as well as the costs of those it recruited last year. It will also receive £11,000 from the rural policing fund and it is expected to benefit from additional funding to help meet the cost of the Airwave communications system.
It is for police authorities to set the final budget and they must determine the precepts. Government grant is just one indicator of police performance. The Audit Commission's figures on spend per capita for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 show that Surrey police spent more than the other forces in the south-east, although I accept the hon. Gentleman's figures with regard to grant per capita under the police grant.
The hon. Gentleman raised several questions about the police funding formula. Although it has many strengths and the policing community retains a high degree of confidence in it, we are working on updating it in line with the needs of policing for the next five years. I also want to ensure that the formula supports the reform and modernisation processes upon which we have embarked.
A working group has been established to examine the formula. Its members include representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and other interested bodies. The group is considering a range of options to update the police funding formula, particularly with regard to the police activity data that underlie the formula and the additional costs that might arise from policing especially sparsely or densely populated areas.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the proximity of Gatwick and Heathrow airports. I cannot give any guarantees about the outcome, until the exercise has been completed. However, as such questions are raised

49WH
every year throughout the country in consultations about the police grant, I hope that we will be able to answer them and show people that at least we have examined them, even if we have decided that they should not influence the formula.
Chris Grayling: Will the Minister also ask the people who are engaged in that work to examine the potential impact of cross-border movements? Some young people board a train and travel a few stops down the line to Surrey to commit antisocial acts because policing is tougher in the Metropolitan police area. Such cross-border flows of trouble could become a problem
Mr. Denham: I am unsure whether it would prove possible for a formula to reflect such movements without it becoming incredibly complex. The Metropolitan police might point to criminal activity that is committed by people who come into the city from places such as Surrey. However, the type of one-way traffic activity that the hon. Gentleman mentioned might be addressed, if there was an evidence base to show that it was taking place. Some formulas are so complex that nobody understands how they operate. The new formula must avoid that pitfall if it is to command respect.
On police numbers, the public rightly feel reassured by the sight of police officers on our streets—it helps to reduce the fear of crime. The police reform process that we embarked on is designed to achieve record numbers of police officers in England and Wales by this spring and 130,000 officers by spring next year, and to make better use of their time. Our own research shows that just fewer than 50 per cent. of a typical police constable's time is spent in the police station rather than out on patrol, for a variety of reasons.
On a recent visit to the police headquarters in Surrey, I was interested to see the new call centre that had been established with the specific intention of enabling officers to report directly the details of crimes, such as burglaries, that they had dealt with. They no longer have to travel back to a police station to enter the details before setting out on the next visit. I was impressed by that change when I visited the force with the chief constable. It is just one example of the ways in which new investment can free up officer time and, in part, it is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about response times for particular types of incident. The public can also use the call centre. As public confidence in that way of contacting the police grows, police time will be freed up.
In general, investment in information technology, reduced bureaucracy, better liaison with the courts and more effective use of civilian staff—the chief constable
50WH
of Surrey is keen on that—will all help to deliver more police officers in the community, not just wandering the streets but devoting their energy to getting underneath and behind the underlying problems that the hon. Gentleman described and solving them. That is the wish of the public and the Government.
The overall number of police officers in Surrey on 30 September 2001 was 2,018. That is just under 400 more officers than in March 1997, although about half of the increase resulted from boundary changes with the Metropolitan police on 1 April 2000—none the less, it is a significant increase. I referred to the support that the chief constable gives to civilian staff. Their numbers have increased since March 1997 by 230 to 957 in September 2001. Many of the extra civilian support staff are used to free police officers from paperwork and from jobs that can be as effectively undertaken by civilians.
Surrey recognised that it would be affected by the boundary changes around London in April 2000. It had Met secondees, but recognised the need to recruit early. The force recruited strongly in 1999–2000 and in 2000–01 and expects to be at its target strength of 2,043 by 31 March 2002, which reflects a slight decline over the past 12 months. The force and chief constable deliberately decided to get ahead of the game and recruit extra officers so that they were not overly affected by the return of the secondees; I certainly would not criticise that judgment.
Under the crime fighting fund, Surrey police were allocated an additional 134 recruits over and above their previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. In the first year, the force appointed 240 recruits, including 94 funded by the CFF. Last year, in addition to the force's allocation of 46 CFF recruits for 2000–01, the Government allowed it to recruit this year's allocation of 48. Similarly, we have allowed the force to recruit several CFF officers this year that should have been recruited next year. The Government have given significant support to the recruitment of extra police officers in Surrey. Overall, we expect the Surrey force to recruit more than 200 new recruits in the current financial year and, through the CFF, it will be able to recruit another 32 officers next year, over and above any planned recruitment of its own.
The hon. Gentleman talked about pay. I do not have time to set out details of the extra allowances, but as he knows a significant number of officers in Surrey received for the first time an extra payment of £2,000. Surrey also benefited from help with low-cost housing.
We are aware of concern about recruitment and retention issues; we are working with Surrey and other forces to get to grips with the matter and to find the best way of tackling it.

Specialist Surgery (North-West Kent)
1 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: Last month, the Government announced an expansion in day surgery in the national health service, a welcome decision given the lengthy waiting times for most elective operations.
In 2000–01, according to the Audit Commission, the average wait for day-case patients needing cataract operations was 163 days, for hernia operations 84 days and for varicose vein operations, 154 days. Furthermore, critics of the NHS often do not recognise that the demand for operations continues to increase. The United Kingdom has an ageing population, which is reflected in the increasing amount of resources that the NHS must set aside each year for treating and managing chronic conditions and performing elective surgery.
More operations than ever before are being performed; for example, in 1994 there were 145,000 cataract operations, in 1999 there were 200,000 and about 250,000 are expected to be performed next year. However, unless we are prepared to carry out a far-reaching overhaul of the way in which surgery is carried, demand will continue greatly to outstrip supply.
A report by consultants from Moorfields eye hospital, published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology in the year 2000, warned of the escalating problem of visual impairment in the UK. The report concluded that by the beginning of this year the number of people with impaired vision needing some form of surgical intervention would reach 2.5 million and many of them would die before they had the operation. That is especially regrettable given the reduction in the quality of life caused by impaired vision, especially in elderly people.
Unfortunately, the UK is not the only country facing this problem; hundreds of thousands of patients in France and Germany are in a similar position, and even their much-vaunted health systems leave thousands of patients untreated each year. Indeed, no health system, however generously resourced or efficient it is, will ever eliminate the problem of unmet need. A constituent who came to see me recently mentioned the German system, which we hear is well resourced and has no waiting list, yet her sister had waited eight months for a hip replacement in the private sector. It is not only a problem in the UK; other countries have similar problems.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the way that elective surgery is managed in this country can and should be improved, as the Government have said. Too many patients wait too long for treatment. For example, last year a quarter of patients in north-west Kent waiting for an ophthalmology appointment had to wait in excess of six months to be seen. Several patients, having eventually been given a date for cataract surgery, had their operations cancelled at the last moment because their bed or theatre space was needed for an emergency.
For an elderly and often vulnerable patient, such a scenario is stressful and confusing. It is also extremely frustrating for the patient's family, who have to prepare their mother or father once again to face an operation, having already had to deal with the problems caused by their impaired vision, perhaps for many months.
52WH
Patients and their families ask why they should have to wait so long for what is in most cases a routine and relatively straightforward procedure. They also ask why there are such glaring local variations in the way that elective surgery is managed. Why do some trusts have measures to ensure that day surgery cases and planned operations are not cancelled for emergency cases and others not??

Plans by Darent Valley hospital in my constituency to begin 24-hour surgery, with six beds specifically ring-fenced for patients requiring routine operations such as hernias, varicose veins and urological procedures, are an example of innovative thinking, which needs to be more widely replicated in the NHS. The new service, which is being supported by a dedicated nursing team, is being funded for 12 months by the winter emergency services team, and will allow 30 extra patients each week to receive treatment. Darent Valley hospital is the first hospital in Kent to provide a dedicated, stand-alone unit for intermediate and elective surgery. That is welcome and essential. I have been in touch with the hospital over the past few months, and I have recent figures about its latest situation.
The Minister will know that Darent Valley hospital was zero-rated and has faced significant problems. However, I am pleased to tell those in the Chamber that there have already been noticeable improvements. The number of patients waiting more than 26 weeks for an out-patient appointment has reduced from 501 to 117 in the past four months. The total number of patients waiting for more than 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment dropped dramatically from 2,160 in March 2001 to 654. That is a huge and welcome improvement in waiting times for out-patient appointments.
The worst problem faced by the hospital is the waiting list for in-patient procedures. The total number of patients waiting for an in-patient appointment is still 3,500 and has not dropped significantly over the past year, despite the trust's best efforts. The hospital has successfully reduced the wait for an out-patient appointment, but there are still huge backlogs on inpatient appointments, which is causing it great difficulties.
The new unit will allow the hospital to fast-track elective surgery cases and to ensure that all patients are seen within the year. Some 5 per cent. of patients have to wait more than 12 months. The new unit will also ensure that more patients are treated within the Government's target period of six months, which the hospital is finding challenging. The scheme is welcome and will significantly improve the situation. The drawback of the scheme is that it is only a temporary measure. The trust does not yet have funding to keep the unit open beyond next year, and has no resources permanently to operate its theatres around the clock. Although the winter and emergency services team funding is valuable, it underlines this country's ad hoc and inconsistent approach to elective surgery.
Occasional batches of funding for individual trusts are not the answer. Every trust in the country must look closely at the way in which it conducts elective and intermediate surgery, and must work hard to identify new ways of ensuring that patients do not wait as long, and get a better overall quality of service. Just as important, the Department of Health and the

53WH
NHS Modernisation Agency must ensure that trusts are given the necessary resources and support. After all, what bothers patients who are waiting for elective operations is that under the current system they are made to feel like third-class patients. The quality of care that they get may be good, but naturally they feel aggrieved because it is made clear to them that their condition is of low priority, and that their treatment will be fitted in as and when circumstances permit. Their condition may not be life threatening, but it precludes them from enjoying quality of life, so why should they always be sent to the back of the queue?
There is no question of blame, and I am not attacking anyone. My point is simply that patients who are on routine waiting lists are often made to feel that their case must wait for the more urgent ones. They ask, quite reasonably, why that must always be so. This is why dedicated, stand-alone elective surgery units are a way forward. They ensure that patients awaiting elective operations enjoy the same access to health care as any other NHS patient does.
Dedicated units have operated effectively in the United States of America for many years. According to one US surgeon writing in the British Medical Journal, they have become such a fixture of the US health care system that in some cases they are threatening the viability of neighbouring general hospital units. One surgeon said that the dedicated unit was remarkably efficient. Its four theatres and fluoroscopy room performed 250 surgical and 200 interventional pain management procedures each month without operating at weekends or evenings, and without running at maximum capacity. The range of its care included orthopaedics, such as joint arthroscopy, cruciate ligament, shoulder reconstructions and extensive arm surgery. It also included general surgery, such as "lumps and bumps" and hernia repair, cosmetic surgery and invasive pain management. A neighbouring facility catered for common ear, nose and throat conditions and for ophthalmologic surgery.
Of course, specialist fast-track units are not suited to the needs of every patient. Patients with multiple health problems who need treatment from a range of services and specialisms will still need to be treated under the current system. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that for most patients, dedicated fast-track units are a viable option. Specialist units can operate throughout the week, at weekends as well as nights, provided they have proper support and are well integrated with other hospital facilities so that all the relevant services can be accessed easily and quickly at all times. They would cut swathes through our waiting lists in a short time.
The Royal College of Surgeons is backing the idea. The ex-president of the college—Sir Barry Jackson—said that the idea of ring-fencing elective beds and adopting more flexible working patterns should be embraced by the profession and promoted, providing there is an adequate number of surgeons and support staff to make it possible.
The British Medical Association also said that the concept of dedicated fast-track units was a welcome contribution to the debate about reducing time spent by patients waiting for elective surgery. I am therefore pleased that the Government announced last year their intention to build 26 fast-track units by 2006 as part of their latest hospital building programme. Will 26 units
54WH
be enough to make a difference, given the rapidly increasing demand for elective surgery? There is a good case to be made for a dedicated unit of that sort to be built in north-west Kent, which is a fast-growing area where there is already a high demand for elective procedures. What will we do while we wait for the programme of elective units to come on stream, supposedly in 2006?
Plans by Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust to ring-fence beds for elective surgery and to explore the viability of 24-hour surgery is one way of ensuring that patients awaiting elective procedures are seen more quickly. Another possible approach would be to employ surgical teams from abroad on short-term NHS contracts. I know that it is extremely controversial but only last week I received a letter from a German health association that said it could provide the NHS with a complete surgical team able to carry out a wide range of elective and intermediate procedures. Clearly there would be all sorts of issues but they would be working in NHS hospitals, with NHS staff and NHS equipment, on NHS patients. It is worthy of consideration. Currently there are not enough surgeons and nurses to cut through the backlog of waiting lists as fast as we would like. It might be a way of reducing some of the problems.
As many of our operating theatres are not capable of operating round the clock because of manpower and resource restrictions, it would seem sensible to examine such ideas as a means of clearing our surgical backlog at regular intervals. After all, most patients would much prefer to be treated in an NHS hospital, which is close to home and a familiar environment, than to have to fly abroad for treatment. While I am pleased to see real and tangible efforts being made to cut elective surgery waiting lists, we can and need to go further. With the demand for elective procedures likely only to increase in the next few years, we have to ensure now that we have the right sort of surgical regime in place so that the NHS has the capacity to deal with the problems effectively.
I have worked in the NHS for a long time. I believe that I am the only MP who currently carries on any medical practice. I therefore have a lot of experience with the way that patients deal with the NHS and the way that they handle their care. Patients, generally speaking, do not complain about the care once they receive it. People who have heart attacks or get pneumonia go to hospital and are treated very quickly and generally are extremely appreciative. Patients complain not about emergency care, but about the length of time that they have to wait for non-emergency care. That is the biggest problem that the NHS faces.
There are currently three problems. One is increasing demand. We call it a problem but I am not sure that it is. People are living longer and the population is ageing. It has been shown that men in particular will spend the last 15 years of their life with a chronic or disabling illness. That is a long time. Many of those chronic and disabling illnesses are amenable to surgical intervention. If we could reduce the number of people waiting, we could improve the quality of life for millions of people by operating on them when they need it. I see it not as a problem, but as an opportunity. People are living longer: they are coming forward with more illnesses and they have more treatable conditions. It is up to us to ensure that they get that treatment.

55WH
The second problem that the NHS faces is its inability to predict accurately how long people must wait. They are told that they will have to wait six or nine months for their operation but cannot be given an accurate figure. The hospital cannot predict how many operations it will carry out in a given week because it cannot predict how many emergencies it might have to deal with that would eat into that list.
The third problem is the low priority given to routine cases. Hospitals have to make emergencies their priority, but the corollary is that people who are not emergencies see themselves as a nuisance and insufficiently ill to merit the treatment that they want. That is unnecessary and unhelpful. Operations are postponed for very good reasons but it causes huge disruption for families. The Government should look at the overall picture of the disruption not only to the family, but also to the staff and the patient and the overall costs. Someone needing a hip replacement will be virtually incapacitated. If they had a hip replacement they could become productive members of society. If we examined the overall cost to society of a patient on a waiting list, we might discover some interesting figures.
In conclusion, we have to change the culture and move towards an NHS that is seen to view people as a high priority, seen to provide the right treatment and seen to predict when an operation should take place. If we can produce a culture in which people no longer view themselves as a nuisance, but as part of a system to provide treatment in response to their needs in a timely fashion, everyone will be more satisfied. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the plans that I outlined and assess whether any mileage can be gained in progressing them further. I look forward to hearing her response.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing this debate and on his thoughtful speech about the direction of reform for the NHS. Much is happening, but more progress remains to be made. My hon. Friend clearly speaks with great authority and commitment. He is right that this subject does not always secure the most attention from the public or the media, yet it is a vital issue for many thousands of people every day.
Last year, more than 6.5 million elective operations in NUS trusts took place in England and nearly half were day case operations. As my hon. Friend said, these operations matter immensely to people's quality of life and the effective delivery of elective surgery is crucial to delivering the in-patient waiting time target set out in the NHS plan and rightly so. We all want top quality emergency care when we need it, but we also want to know that routine treatment for quality of life and our ability to carry on living our lives to the full is delivered as speedily as possible.
My hon. Friend is right to raise issues about the separation of elective and emergency care as part of the modernisation of services. Equally important is the role of the Modernisation Agency in improving the delivery of care at trust level and spreading good practice
56WH
throughout the NHS. The success of the national booked admissions programme is also important. By 2005, it will allow GPs to book hospital appointments at times convenient to the patient. It is not just about better management of elective surgery and patient treatment throughout the NHS, but about addressing the frustration of patients who do not know when their appointment for needed surgery will take place. Shaping the services around the needs of patients as well as more efficient care is necessary.
In north-west Kent, some measures are already under way to increase the optimum use of bed capacity and ease the pressures placed on elective surgery by emergency care. The new Darent Valley hospital, opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in December 2000, was linked closely to the development and implementation of new models of care around a "closer to home" strategy, which supports additional capacity in the non-acute setting.
In the past year, the trust and primary care trust rolled out initiatives to support these new ways of working with an increasing emphasis on that strategy. For example, the stroke rehabilitation team reduced the length of stay of rehabilitative patients from an average of 21 days to an average of seven. The intermediate care team worked to prevent the need for hospital admission by working directly with the medical assessment unit and accident and emergency departments. Additional intermediate care capacity was freed up at the Livingstone hospital and the orthopaedic bridging team in the acute trust allowed the team to treat around 10 per cent. of total orthopaedic admissions, thus reducing the average length of stay of patients in the acute setting. Of course more remains to be done, but it is important to recognise progress.
My hon. Friend spoke about elective centres, but I want to speak about the national position on diagnostic and treatment centres before I deal with his points about north-west Kent. Diagnostic and treatment centres are a new, more appropriate way of delivering elective care. They can carry out a wide range of elective work and, by moving elective patients out of acute centres and into dedicated units, they free valuable emergency and critical care beds. They are separate units, not disrupted by other parts of the hospital, so patients can be treated quickly and efficiently and in an appropriate environment. Often, the centres are on the hospital site and so appropriate treatment in emergency or critical care units is available. However, as my hon. Friend said, there are a variety of DTCs in other countries and we need to learn from their experience, too.
A diagnostic and treatment centre is defined as a dedicated unit providing safe, high-volume, elective diagnostic and treatment services, with its work separated and protected from emergency pressures. DTCs are capable of delivering a wide range of services. How they develop in an individual hospital trust will be influenced by a variety of factors, including the potential impact and reliance on other hospital services. Careful consideration must be given to those factors in each individual instance, but there are some core elements that we expect all DTCs to provide.
First, elective or scheduled care must be separated from emergency care, with both diagnosis and treatment usually provided. Secondly, the centres must focus on effective work processes for maximum efficiency to

57WH
make possible the speedy treatment of as many patients as possible. Care must be co-ordinated among medical and surgical specialities, and across all disciplines. Fourthly, they must provide a service focused around the patient, with prompt and convenient access and reliable booked appointments. As my hon. Friend made clear, patients' concerns and experiences must be addressed when considering the routine surgery that they need.
The booked admissions programme is a crucial part of the DTCs. It should mean the abolition of waiting lists for hospital appointments and admissions. Patients should receive a choice of convenient times within a guaranteed maximum waiting time. If the current trend in the growth of GP referrals continues, it will halve the maximum waiting time for a routine appointment, with the average waiting time for out-patient appointments also falling in line with the targets in the NHS plan.
The DTCs and the booked admissions programme will have a major impact on elective surgery throughout the NHS. The DTCs also have an important part to play in achieving the targets in the NHS plan. As my hon. Friend said, we have already announced a series of diagnostic and treatment centres. A target of 20 was set out in the NHS plan, with eight fully operational and treating 200,000 patients a year by 2004. The plan states:
"We will develop a new generation of Diagnostic and Treatment Centres to increase the number of elective operations that can be treated in a single day or with a short stay."
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans for 26 DTCs in February 2001. That announcement put us well on course to exceed the target that I mentioned a moment ago. Work is progressing to ensure that those deliver, through tight project management and, where necessary, intense and early process redesign. They will work with the NHS Modernisation Agency as part of its programme.
My hon. Friend asked us to go further and I agree that we need to do so. The Government are considering ways to extend the DTC programme to areas including the south-east and, if possible, bring it forward. We have an ambitious programme for centres throughout London and the south-east and we will consider any suitable proposals to benefit even more patients.
We are already working with the London and southeast regional offices to identify additional diagnostic and treatment centre sites. We aim to have at least four schemes up and running in London and the south-east by the end of this year. We will encourage all proposals if they offer an appropriate response to local needs and quality and value for money. We will look to the new strategic health authorities to oversee the strategy and development of diagnostic and treatment centre proposals. They will work with local project teams to establish when the proposals should move forward.
We are also developing a process for further proposals to receive approval. We shall consider future proposals, including those from the new Kent and Medway health authority, which will no doubt need to take a strategic view of the delivery of services for Kent and Medway as a whole. At the launch of the diagnostic and treatment centre programme on 6 February this year, further expressions of interest were sought from
58WH
trusts that wish to participate in the second wave of diagnostic and treatment centre expansion. We expect more interest and we shall look to the Modernisation Agency to support applications.
It is only appropriate, of course that the first decision about where DTC sites are located should come from the future strategic health authorities. Obviously, the Kent and Medway health authority will need to explore with all the acute trusts and the nine PCTs the current capacity constraints within the area. Strategic decisions will need to be taken about the future delivery of services, but I understand that a provision of a diagnostic and treatment centre to serve the population of Kent and Medway to increase elective capacity is one of the options that is being considered.
Discussions will need to take place on an area-wide basis to determine the most appropriate site and the most appropriate way forward. If developed, a diagnostic and treatment centre could relieve pressure on not only the Darent Valley hospital, but other providers. My hon. Friend asked what should happen while the development of diagnostic and treatment centres takes place. He mentioned the present work in his local hospital. He is right that, due to constraints on capacity as a result of an increase in emergency admissions and delayed discharges, the trust has reduced the number of cancelled operations by protecting six beds for intermediate dependency elective surgery. Those beds are being used for patients on the in-patient waiting list, whose operations require them to stay overnight.
Non-recurrent funding from WEST—the winter and emergency services team—will maintain that service for 10 months from the end of February this year and will allow 30 patients a week to access surgery. That amounts to 1,380 a year from a current waiting list of 3,500 patients. By targeting the patients with the greatest clinical need whose operations make them most suitable for such care, it will enable the trust to make considerable progress.
The trust is negotiating with the PCT to ensure that funding is provided on a recurrent basis for the remainder of the year and beyond. Clearly, it is for the local economy to decide how best its local targets should be met and the best way in which to provide the service. My hon. Friend is also right that we shall need to look at other innovative ways of improving elective surgery and reducing waiting times in the meantime, such as introducing the booked admissions programme and recruiting staff from different places, including abroad.
We are only too aware of the pressures on the NHS system. Perhaps too often, the media focuses on the accident and emergency programmes and emergency care. We have taken steps to deal with those pressures and to improve emergency care by making more money available and introducing reforms to improve the patient experience, whenever we can. We need also to keep high in our minds the work that is being done to improve the support for those who need routine treatment. We must look to how we use new methods of working and how to make the best use of modern, more sophisticated technology. That is clearly about expanding capacity and investing the additional resources, where needed, and also most crucially about reforming the way in which we provide services and ensuring that the additional resources are put to best

59WH
use. We must use that work to make the greatest possible impact on people's lives and, especially, patients' lives.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that considerable progress is being made in diagnostic and treatment centres throughout the country and that there is the potential for a big difference for his constituents and those who use the specialist elective surgical services throughout north-west Kent

Regional Development Agencies
1.30 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am grateful for securing the debate to allow me to talk about regional development agencies, and especially the South West of England development agency.
There is no doubt that regional development agencies have burst on the scene. However, I want to know why they are here and what they hope to achieve. If I were asked what the South West RDA stood for, I would say a "really dreadful agency that removes democracy absolutely", which is "RDA" twice.
Why must we have a regional development agency in the south-west of that size? It includes Gloucester, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. If one turned the RDA on its head from Gloucester and stuck it upwards, it would stretch to the Scottish borders, which gives some idea of the amount of land that is covered.
The RDA's brief is to help with economic development, efficiencies, employment, development and sustained development. It has not hit any of those criteria since its inception. It is meant to work for the benefit of people in the south-west, not for the benefit of a few.
Why do we have a quango that has been formed to be subservient to an un-elected regional assembly? I do not understand why the assembly has the say over the RDA. During a similar debate on 12 December, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asked about the Government's plans for the regional assemblies, what they would be used for and when they would be made legitimate. Our problem is that the RDA goes to the regional assembly every time that a decision must be made and the assembly okays it. What legitimacy does that have in the south-west? Absolutely none.
Let us examine the figures that show the growth of the RDA. In 1999, its budget was £44 million, in 2000, it was £63 million and, in 2001, £84 million. Up to 20 per cent. of its assets can be transferred to any one project and I shall return to that subject because of last year's foot and mouth crisis.
I am intrigued by the RDA's annual accounts. It spent nearly £10 million on administration out of a budget of £84 million. The accounts show that it spent £41 million safeguarding 602 jobs and creating a further 1,000. That money has been spent badly on behalf of the people in the south-west to create a sustained infrastructure.
Let us consider examples of where the money goes. The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) contains the Morlands site in Glastonbury, which the RDA has bought. What is the RDA doing about that? It has not approached my right hon. Friend to tell him what it will do to the site. Why will the RDA not say what will happen to it?
In my constituency, a bypass is not being built for Ashcott and Walton because of Somerset county council's inability to get it together. The RDA did nothing to help. Nobody disputes that the bypass is a

61WH
necessity. If the RDA exists to help and to create sustained development, why was it silent even after my colleagues and I made repeated pleas?
I discovered that the RDA spent £123,000 on advertising last year. When I asked why, I received no answer. Perhaps I can help to answer that question. The latest advertisement in stations in the south-west is a nice picture of the Clifton suspension bridge with giraffes on it. We do not have many giraffes in Somerset—or anywhere else in England that I am aware. Why spend money on promoting south-west tourism with a photograph of the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol featuring giraffes? The serious side is that the advertisement is promoting the zoo in Bristol, but it does not look good for the south-west. Why can we not have an integrated policy, rather than a fragmented idea of unitary authorities? I suspect that the RDAs were originally designed to look after the unitary authorities.
Moving down the M5, our arterial motorway, it is evident that the RDA's main development, as it itself admits, is in Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, and, because of objective 1 funding, Cornwall. Most revealingly, the areas in between have been forgotten. The coastal and market town initiative would put money into such places—Minehead, in my constituency, is an example—although they do not know what they are supposed to do with it. I asked whether we might have some for Watchet, which features in the deprivation index and needs the money, as it has high unemployment, but we were told that that was not possible. I have tried twice to set up a meeting with an RDA representative, but I have been let down both times.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Given that welcome initiative, would my hon. Friend say, on reflection, that the RDA could have been more proactive in coming to terms with some of the severe deprivation caused as a result of foot and mouth, or does he consider that it has done everything possible?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend and I both represent rural constituencies, in his case East Devon, where foot and mouth has been devastating, and I agree. The RDA put aside £14 million to deal with the foot and mouth crisis. The crisis has cost the country more than £l0 billion, but our RDA has provided only £14 million to help us.
My constituency covers part of Exmoor. The other part is covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). If people want to find out what it is like to feel the cold chill of foot and mouth, they should go to see the businesses on Exmoor. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon is absolutely right—the package was too little, too late and, unfortunately, put together in a difficult way.
Let us consider the company itself. I believe that changes have been made and I am sure that the Minister will bring me up to date. Why does the board contain only three business people, one of whom—the managing director of Clarks shoes—has just resigned? The rest are all from county councils or they are union representatives. There is nothing wrong with them, but what experience have they of business? Surely the RDA is a business-orientated organisation designed to introduce infrastructure and business. If we do not have that, we do not have a viable organisation.
62WH
The most damning aspect is the role of Sir Michael Lickiss, chairman of the RDA. He is an accountant. What experience has he of business? The buck stops there and nothing has given me any comfort that the RDA is working. I call on the Minister to make Sir Michael resign and have a business man take over. As long as Sir Michael is there, no real progress will be made. It is not that he has done a bad job; he has done the job that, as an accountant, he was trained to do. Why can we not have the head of Clarks, or the head of Cellophane from my constituency, for instance? Why must we have an accountant? Sir Michael should realise the limitations he faces, say, "I've done my bit, thank you very much", and ride off into the sunset. The longer he is there, the less that will happen. We are now witnessing the proof of the pudding.
The Government should examine RDAs carefully. If they want credibility for a structure that I believe to be entirely wrong, because of its size and because they broke something that was working perfectly well, and if they want legitimacy for the RDAs, they will have to convince a sceptical south-west—a huge area—to accept that the RDA works. On the evidence of the report and the board and all the other information that I have given, I do not see how the organisation can be sustained. The longer it goes on as it is, the more it will damage the south-west. Give us the chance to show that the south-west does not need the RDA. It needs the proper funding that councils and other organisations had before.
Mr. Swire rose—
Mr. John Cummings: Order. I have not been given notice, but if the Minister does not mind—
The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson)indicated assent.
1.40 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I am sorry if I was a little quick off the mark.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said. I fear that his comments about RDAs are historical, as I believe that they are shortly to be replaced; they certainly would be if the Conservatives were back in power. RDAs do not represent a homogenous geographical area, particularly not in the south-west, as my hon. Friend said.
The costs worry me. They have been increasing dramatically, while our councils have been starved of central Government funding. The results are all too clear, particularly in Devon. Interestingly enough, when I put a written question to the Minister for Employment and the Regions a few months ago as to how many people in my part of the world had asked or made written inquiries about wanting to have a regional assembly, the answer was none. I suggest that that is probably the answer that most of my hon. Friends would get if they asked the same question.

63WH
RDAs duplicate a lot of work that is already done by the Government office for the south west and the county council. They are shortly to be replaced, not by reinvigorating the existing tiers of local government, as we would do and as my hon. Friend has suggested, but by another body of unelected officials at the regional assemblies. I fear that the structure of regional government will be altered beyond recognition, as that is the last project that the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to see through. I understand that he has already been forced to redraft the White Paper that is due on regional government to make it clear that a tier of regional government will have to go to make way for the regional assemblies. We all know that that will be at shire county or county council level.
I was at a meeting of the Confederation of British Industry in Plymouth the other day and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), made his feelings about county councils clear. He said that they wasted money and were an unnecessary level of local government. We disagree fundamentally; we think that they are a good level of local government and they should be beefed up. We do not believe that the RDA should accrue power, or that the son of RDA, the regional assembly, should come in its wake.
There is confusion and it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify the position as the White Paper has not come out yet. The other day, when I was investigating improvements to the roads in my constituency, I was told that the south-west area's multi-modal report was coming out and was going first to the regional assembly. Why is it going to the regional assembly? Does the assembly have the authority to investigate such a report? We need clarification.
I hope that the Government are not moving too quickly to replace RDAs with regional assemblies. I hope that the replacement is nothing to do with the fact that the Tories won 17 counties while Labour emerged with only seven at the last county council elections. We in the south-west believe that we have particular needs, and I am sure that other areas could argue that equally well. In the light of foot and mouth disease, we need clear help and we want money to go to the end user. We do not want it diverted to quasi-autonomous national government organisations. Will the Minister clarify his plans?
1.44 pm
The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) for the opportunity to talk about regional development agencies. They are a key element of our economic strategy and, when single-pot funding arrangements are introduced in April, they will increasingly have the flexibility to decide on their own priorities. With regard to that, they will be guided by the regional economic strategies that they are developing, and by a close understanding of the needs of stakeholders in their regions. They will work best where stakeholders engage fully with them and ensure that their views and perspectives are clearly expressed. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in letting my office have notice of some of the contents of his speech.
64WH
There is a genuine difference of opinion between the Government and the official Opposition on RDAs. The comments of the hon. Members for Bridgwater and for East Devon (Mr. Swire) have made that clear. The Conservative party is opposed to the RDAs. It was opposed to them in 1997, when they were part of our general election manifesto, and it was opposed to them in 2001, when we said that we would build on the foundation that the RDAs have provided by continuing to decentralise.
Conservative Members continually get confused about the difference between devolution and decentralisation. The hon. Member for East Devon asked me to clarify what will happen when the RDAs are replaced. The RDAs are not going to be replaced. A White Paper will be published shortly that will describe detailed proposals for English regional devolution, but it will not suggest that the RDAs should be replaced. However, I will not refer to its contents at length, because they do not address the issue under discussion.
The Conservative party does not have much experience of Scotland and Wales. In 1997 it truly became a one-nation party: none of its Members of Parliament represented Scottish or Welsh constituencies; they represented constituencies in only one nation—England
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: We have one Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish constituency
Alan Johnson: I was referring to the 1997 election. The 2001 election resulted in a 100 per cent. increase in the number of Conservative Members of Parliament from Scotland; there is now one, instead of none.
The decentralisation programme is founded upon an analysis of what happened in Scotland and Wales. Scottish Enterprise and the Welsh Development Agency have been around for a long while, and they still play an integral part in promoting economic development in those countries, despite devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The principle of one nation and one Principality has been upheld in those countries, and that will also be the case in England. None of the White Paper's proposals will involve the replacement of the RDAs. We are talking about regional assemblies or the subject of democratic accountability, which featured in the contribution of the hon. Member for Bridgwater.
It is worth reflecting on why we established the RDAs. In 1996, Bruce Millan, the former European Commissioner, examined the successes and failures of regional policy. He found a piecemeal and fragmented picture. There was much useful activity in all the regions, including the south-west, but different elements were unconnected to each other, and individual regions lacked ownership of their various activities. Disparities between regions had widened, and no region's performance was as good as it could have been.
A White Paper entitled "Building Partnerships for Prosperity" was published in December 1997. It built on the Milan report by clarifying the roles and

65WH
functions of the RDAs. It also separated out the RDA for London—which would form part of the structure beneath the newly elected Mayor and Assembly—from the RDAs in the eight remaining English regions. The RDAs outside London were given legal status by the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, and became fully operational in April 1999. In the ensuing period, the RDAs have, by necessity, merely been the channel through which funding streams that were previously set in place have been distributed. Over 90 per cent. of their funding comes from land and properties and the single regeneration budget. Therefore, in those early years, the RDAs' roles were to establish their economic strategy and to work with the stakeholders, and, as the CBI report before Christmas recognised, when we move to the single pot in April, the RDAs will have the flexibility that they need.
We have followed a consistent policy in relation to the RDAs. They are intended to be powerful bodies, which understand and have real roots in their regions. With regional partners, they have drawn up regional economic strategies, which will guide their activities. Their close engagement with local partners means that they are able to direct resources to the real priorities in their regions. If hon. Members believe that an RDA has not identified those needs correctly—which was the gist of much of what Opposition Members said—they need to engage with them closely as they revise and refine their strategies.
Irrespective of the position of the Conservative party, which may or may not change, it is important that all MPs engage fully with the RDAs. They have an important role to play. It is worth reflecting for a moment on the impressive successes that the South West RDA has already achieved. Regeneration plans that the RDA is supporting will protect over 400 jobs at the Lister Petter site in Dursley and enable that long-established company to continue operating. Investment of £15 million in the Eden project, which funded much of the infrastructural work to kick the project off, is already seeing excellent returns. Recent research shows that Eden generated £111 million extra spending in the south-west in its first eight months of operation. The RDA has also invested £1.5 million in the combined universities in Cornwall project, and has committed a further £10.5 million. That crucial project for Cornwall will owe much to the RDA's support.
I was interested to hear the concerns of the hon. Member for Bridgwater that RDAs concentrate excessively on urban areas at the expense of the countryside. I have heard that criticism in reverse: that urban areas get a raw deal. I assure both tendencies that we expect RDAs to address difficulties in both town and country. We have set them urban targets to reduce social exclusion in the most deprived wards in towns and cities, and rural targets to regenerate market towns, and come up with their own targets Car action it rural priority areas in the light of last year's rural White Paper. We have asked them to address both aspects in their corporate plans.
The hon. Gentleman expressed the view that the South West RDA should have done more in response to the foot and mouth crisis. I know how difficult
66WH
conditions have been in the south-west. However, the South West RDA has done a great deal to help firms suffering as a result of foot and mouth. The RDA was instrumental in setting up the regional taskforce formed after the crisis broke. Through the business recovery fund, the RDA has committed £14 million to assist business recovery in the region. Phase 1 of the fund involved the allocation of business support of up to £15,000 for affected businesses. In all, 1,200 businesses in the south-west region received grant support totalling more than £8.5 million, of which more than £5.5 million has been claimed already.
We made further business recovery funds available in November and a further £3 million was allocated to the south-west. Following discussions involving partners in the region, it was decided that the funds should support the regional priority sectors most affected by the outbreak, and most closely associated with rural areas. On 28 January, the RDA announced that more than £2.3 million of funding would be earmarked to support sub-regional and regional initiatives in the food and drink, and leisure and tourism priority sectors. Initiatives that are being supported include an extension of the successful tourism promotion run by the RDA and South West Trains last summer to run until late spring, and the setting up of a dedicated south-west food and drink promotional organisation.
One would always want to do more in such circumstances. I hope that the real achievements will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that the South West RDA is taking the need to support the rural economy seriously and is acting effectively to do so. In that context, I think that the hon. Gentleman's call for Sir Michael Lickiss to resign is unfair and unwarranted. Accountancy is a noble profession, and I would not condemn someone because he happens to be an accountant.
Without having the statistics, I believe that RDAs are business led and, as far as I know, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is no more than one trade unionist on every RDA board. The latest refreshment of those boards has emphasised and underlined the need for them to be business led, which means that a majority of people on the RDA boards should be business men or business women, but it is obviously important for other stakeholders also to be represented. I agree with him that in the main business people should sit on RDA boards. Sir Michael Lickiss has done an excellent job with his board and staff in launching the RDAs and establishing their priorities, and a call for his resignation is unwarranted.
I understand that the South West RDA has actively supported economic development projects in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It has contributed £2 million towards the £5 million cost of the Watchet marina development to which he referred. Minehead is part of the coastal and market towns initiative, and the RDA is working up plans with the local community to assist in regeneration. In Bridgwater town, the RDA contributed £3.4 million to a successful multi-stranded single regeneration budget project at Sydenham, and will be supporting another project in Hamp ward. It is also involved in discussions regarding the possible relocation

67WH
of the cattle market in Taunton to a motorway junction location, which would benefit the town and the farming community. The RDA has also given outline agreement to help fund the Foyer project aimed at homeless young people, Significant funding has been provided to Bridgwater college for its heavy goods vehicle school.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Moorlands site in Glastonbury, and he asked what the RDA is doing. The RDA purchased the site in March last year, health and safety work has been carried out to make it safe and secure and a steering group has been formed with 14 interested organisations to monitor and advise the consultants who have been engaged. I am advised that a public consultation on the use of the site will be undertaken shortly.
Those are all examples of valuable activities carried out by the RDA, and they are the kind of activities that RDAs throughout England are carrying out for the benefit of the communities that they serve. The hon. Gentleman was concerned that the regional assembly has too much influence over the South West RDA. There will be a legitimate argument about that when the White Paper is published, because the question of democratic accountability is fundamental to that debate, We have strongly encouraged assemblies to take a leading role in scrutinising RDA activities, and I congratulate the South West regional assembly on its initiative in setting up "select committees" to inquire into the RDA's corporate plan. Assemblies can play a key role in scrutinising the plans and work of the RDA in their region. Although they are not directly elected,
68WH
they contain a significant majority of local authority members, who are, of course, elected, with the rest of the membership made up from social and economic partners in the region.
The fundamental aim of the RDAs is socially inclusive sustainable wealth creation. That is the role with which nothing should interfere. We set their targets centrally because they are using taxpayers' money, and it is clear that even under the single-pot regime central Government should set output targets and ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. It is, however, a matter for the RDAs in each region to work with their strategic partners to develop their own strategies.
RDAs are increasingly effective, and are supported by the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and most people who are interested in balanced and effective regional development in England. Their role is increasingly well understood by regional stakeholders who have inputted effectively in the regional economic strategies that guide their activities.
I would be the last person to say that there are no problems. RDAs are less than three years old and, as I explained, they have been working in difficult circumstances in this early period. Abolishing them would mean that the work that they have done, which has led to an impressive strategic focus, would be lost. I hope that even Opposition Members who are sceptical about the matter will come to appreciate the benefits of regional decentralisation as we move into the brave new world of the single-pot regime later this year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she intends to meet health ministers from the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to discuss NHS waiting lists. [32336]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues. Last autumn, on my behalf, my hon. and learned Friend the Advocate-General attended the Joint Ministerial Committee on Health, when a variety of issues were discussed. However, NHS waiting lists in Scotland are a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Rail Network
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the regions on the Strategic Rail Authority plan as it affects Scotland. [32337]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues at the DTLR on a wide range of matters, including the operation of the rail network.

  Rural Economy
  Nicholas Winterton
  8. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the future viability of the rural economy in Scotland with special reference to designation of assisted areas. [32339]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Rural Scotland has a dynamic and vibrant economy and enjoys significant regional aid coverage.

  Small Business
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to encourage small business development in Scotland. [32341]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have delivered the conditions under which business can prosper. The fundamentals of the Scottish economy as part of the UK economy remain strong—high levels of employment, low levels of unemployment, strong public finances, low inflation and the low interest rates. Specific support activity to encourage small business development in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next expects to meet representatives of small businesses to discuss regulation and employment issues. [32342]
  142W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I next plan to meet the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business on Monday 11 March.

  European Capital of Culture
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in the competition for European Capital of Culture 2008. [32343]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for identifying the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008. The Scotland Office has been involved in preparatory work to establish a process for assessing bids to become European Capital of Culture in 2008.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her policy is on the use of railways for ministerial travel between Glasgow and London. [32344]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I use the most efficient and cost-effective mode of transport and travel by train as and when appropriate.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on unemployment in Scotland. [32345]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Latest figures show that the number of people in Scotland out of work and claiming benefit stands at 104,700, a reduction of 600 on the previous month and down by 6,400 over the year.

  Energy Review
  Anne Picking
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the Scotland Office involvement in the PIU energy review. [32346]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 165W.

  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the contribution made by her office to the energy review, with special reference to clean coal technology. [32355]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I represented the Scotland Office on the PIU Energy Review Project Advisory Group. The potential role of clean coal technology was within the scope of the review.

  Government policy is to encourage the development of clean coal technology for application both at home and abroad.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received concerning the Government's energy policy in Scotland. [32349]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I represented the Scotland Office on the PIU Energy Review Project Advisory Group. I have regular discussions with a wide range of individuals and organisations with interests in different aspect of energy policy.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has made to the Treasury on the imposition of the aggregates levy in Scotland. [32347]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I met with representatives of the British Aggregates Association on 21 January and conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the views expressed by the Association.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations have been made to Her Majesty's Treasury on the aggregates levy; and if she will make a statement. [23829]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: My hon. Friend the Minister of State met with representatives of the British Aggregates Association on 21 January and conveyed to my right hon. Friend the financial Secretary to the Treasury the views expressed by the Association.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate has been made of the amount yielded from the proposed aggregates levy in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [23953]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: The proposed aggregates levy is expected to raise around £380 million in the UK in its first full year. The revenues raised will be returned to business and local communities affected by quarrying through a 0.1 percentage point cut in employer's national insurance contribution. Additionally Scotland's share from the Sustainability Fund, allocated by HM Treasury using the Barnett formula, is likely to be approximately £3 million.

  Friends of Scotland Initiative
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the First Minister about her Friends of Scotland initiative. [32348]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues. The First Minister is very supportive of my Friends of Scotland initiative and we will work together on this for Scotland.

  Air Traffic Control Centre, Prestwick
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of NATS to discuss construction of the Prestwick air traffic control centre. [32350]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his previous questions on the subject on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 710W.

  Attendance Allowance
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to her answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 595W, on attendance allowance, what role the Scotland Office played in discussions with the Scottish Executive on payment of attendance allowance to those recipients who will be entitled to receive free personal care in Scotland. [32351]
  144W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I have nothing more to add to the answer given to the hon. Lady on 21 January 2002,Official Report, columns 595-96.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners in Scotland are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. [32352]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Around 181,000 people in Scotland benefit from the minimum income guarantee.

  Scottish Parliament
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about the costs of the devolved Parliament. [32353]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers. The costs of the Scottish Parliament will be met from the Scottish Assigned Budget.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Minister for Energy to discuss developments in the UK oil and gas industry. [32354]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have regular discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy to discuss a wide range of issues including the UK oil and gas industry.

  Euro
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Board of Directors of the Scotland in Europe campaign to discuss the impact of the euro on Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [32356]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I meet regularly with a wide range of people and organisations to discuss issues relating to the Scottish economy. Scottish businesses that have trading links with the euro area, not just those who export or import, will be affected. The Government are therefore committed to working in partnership with the Scottish Executive and with business to ensure the right level of euro preparations in Scotland for working with the euro now.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the names of staff who have been seconded to her Department from the private sector since May 1997, indicating(a) the names of the organisation from which each has come, (b) their responsibilities and Civil Service grades within her Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35833]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. No staff have been seconded to my Department from the private sector.

  Devolution Funding Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on her role as the Minister responsible for the Government's financial relations with the devolved Administration in Scotland. [32894]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of the financial arrangements with the devolved Administration in Scotland were set out in "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: A Statement of Funding Policy". The second edition of the Statement was published in July 2000 by HM Treasury.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  David Cairns
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will make a statement about(a) the subject matter and (b) changes in the number of devolution cases taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council since 1998. [32361]

  The Advocate-General
  Since May 1999, nine devolution issue cases have been taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. All nine cases have concerned points arising under the European Convention on Human Rights. Among the subject matters of the cases were section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, prejudicial pre-trial publicity, assumptions under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 as to whether property was the proceeds of crime, fixed legal aid payments, the competence of section 1 of the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999, temporary sheriffs, and delay in criminal proceedings. The number of cases in each year was: in 2000, three cases; in 2001, five cases; and so far in 2002, one case.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [32364]

  The Advocate-General
  Since 1 January 2002, 19 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They have all raised points under article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which protects the right to a fair trial.

  Duties
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General pursuant to her answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1126W, on her duties, if she will make a statement, in light of the role she has developed under the Scotland Act, on the actings of the Scottish Executive with respect to which she has sought to ensure that the UK Government have early warning. [32362]

  The Advocate-General
  I encourage lawyers from my office to work together closely with Scottish Executive lawyers at an early stage in the development of legislation. Any difficulties will, where possible, be resolved through consultation between the Government and the Scottish Executive. The lawyers in my office will play a part in identifying difficulties and resolving them and I will advise as Advocate-General on occasion.

  European Institutions (Reform)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will make a statement on the implications of reform of European institutions on the operation of the Scotland Act 1998. [32363]

  The Advocate-General
  Sections 29(2)(d) and 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 ensure that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers cannot act incompatibly with Community law. Any changes in Community law which may result from reform of the European institutions would not change that position.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the number of repairs required to the fabric and installations of Portcullis House since it was opened; and what is the estimated total cost. [32388]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Contractors are responsible for repairing any faults in their work identified in the 12 months following the hand-over of Portcullis House in August 2000. During the first 12 months some 3,200 defects were identified, ranging from a missing screw to a cracked pane of glass. This is well within the expected norm for a new building of this size and complexity—the vast majority of defects were minor and have not affected the users of the building. The costs of these repairs do not fall to the House of Commons; they are borne by the contractors.

  The repairs for which the House has been responsible have mostly been minor and have been carried out as part of the day to day maintenance of the building.

  Select Committees
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he has for reform of the system for the appointment of members to select committees. [32389]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Modernisation Committee published its first report on select committees this morning.

  The committee recommends that a new Nominations Committee, chaired by the chairman of Ways and Means and including seven of the most senior members of the Chairman's Panel, should be responsible for overseeing the process of nominations to select committees.

  We believe that the new committee will be provide an independent mechanism, placing nominations to all select committees in the hands of an independent authoritative body and ensuring that the nominations to the committees that scrutinise Government are in the hands of the Commons.

  Private Members' Bills
  Anne Picking
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to make proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to reform the system of Private Members' Bills. [32390]
  147W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I am aware many Members would like to see reform of the system of Private Members' Bills. My right hon. Friend has no proposals to make as yet, but we would welcome hon. Members' views.

  Members' Pensions (Survivor Benefits)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on the impact of the June 2001 decision to extend hon. Members' pension plans to their unmarried partners. [32391]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend has asked the Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund to consider the matter. I should remind the House that, should extension of survivor benefits to unmarried partners lead to increased costs to the scheme, we would expect these costs to be borne by scheme members.

  Works of Art
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much is available to commission and acquire works of art for the Palace of Westminster. [32392]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons has an Acquisition Budget of £50,000 in the current financial year for acquiring works of art, supplemented by an Acquisition Budget of £100,000 in the current financial year for acquiring works of art specifically for Portcullis House. In the new financial year, 2002–03, the main budget will rise to £100,000 and a further £100,000 will be available for Portcullis House. Mr. Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art is responsible for commissioning and acquiring works of art for the House of Commons. The House of Lords has separate acquisition funds.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on changes to the parliamentary timetable and calendar. [32394]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I expect the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons may wish to report on changes to the parliamentary calendar.

  The dates of periodic adjournments are always subject to vote by the House.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how much has been spent on timber for the refurbishment of the Norman Shaw South building. [35681]
  148W
  Derek Conway
  The cost of timber to be supplied under the contract for the refurbishment of Norman Shaw South is some £80,000.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how much certified timber has been used in the refurbishment of the Norman Shaw South building; and what proportion of the total timber purchased for this refurbishment this represents. [35679]

  Derek Conway
  All the timber supplied for the refurbishment of Norman Shaw South is being certified as lawfully obtained from forests and plantations which are managed sustainably.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what action was taken by his Committee to ensure that timber procured for the refurbishment of the Norman Shaw South building was sourced both(a) sustainably and (b) legally. [35680]

  Derek Conway
  The General Specification used for parliamentary works contains the following clause:"Sources of timber: it is the employer's policy to purchase only timber and timber products from sustainably managed sources. When requested, the contractor must submit to the project manager documentary evidence (which has been or can be independently verified) that the timber supplied under this contract has been lawfully obtained from forests and plantations which are managed to sustain their bio-diversity, productivity and vitality and to prevent harm to other ecosystems and any indigenous or forest-dependent people. Such evidence may take the form of a certificate issued under a credible independent verification system, or such other documents which demonstrate the operation of an environmental management system incorporating forest management criteria that conform with internationally recognised principles such as the Helsinki guidelines."

  This clause was added in 2000 and has applied to all contracts drafted since then. The contract for the refurbishment of Norman Shaw South was agreed before then but the contractor is nevertheless supplying certification in line with the clause.

  Select Committee Websites
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Select Committee how many hits there were on the website of each departmental select committee in the weeks beginning(a) 28 January and (b) 4 February; and if any website went down because of excess demand. [35102]

  Michael Fabricant
  The figures for hits on the website of each departmental select committee for the weeks listed are given in the following table. Totals are derived from committee pages on both the parliament server (home pages and press notices) and the publications server (committee publications). No down-time was recorded on either server during the period 28 January to 10 February 2002.
  149W

  28 January to 3 February

  4 to 10 February

  Departmental committee

  Parliament server1 hits

  Publications server2 hits

  Total hits

  Parliament server hits

  Publications server hits

  Total hits

  Culture, Media and Sport

  4,988

  5,952

  10,940

  3,202

  5,454

  8,656

  Defence

  3,335

  4,947

  8,282

  2,088

  4,192

  6,280

  Education and Skills

  874

  773

  1,647

  560

  522

  1,082

  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  868

  1,286

  2,154

  508

  736

  1,244

  Foreign Affairs

  4,571

  4,466

  9,037

  2,603

  3,113

  5,716

  Health

  2,268

  6,164

  8,432

  1,480

  5,711

  7,191

  Home Affairs

  2,250

  4,218

  6,468

  2,250

  2,975

  5,225

  International Development

  4,338

  3,440

  7,778

  2,715

  2,911

  5,626

  Northern Ireland Affairs

  2,415

  1,617

  4,032

  1,499

  654

  2,153

  Science and Technology

  4,262

  4,042

  8,304

  2,587

  3,373

  5,960

  Scottish Affairs

  1,135

  2,256

  3,391

  753

  999

  1,752

  Trade and Industry

  3,938

  5,798

  9,736

  2,719

  7,035

  9,754

  Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  2,839

  4,402

  7,241

  2,217

  4,817

  7,034

  Treasury

  3,519

  4,463

  7,982

  2,461

  2,559

  5,020

  Welsh Affairs

  2,973

  1,516

  4,489

  1,852

  1,438

  3,290

  Work and Pensions

  323

  288

  611

  213

  217

  430

  Total

  44,896

  55,628

  100,524

  29,707

  46,706

  76,413

  1 Select Committee home and press notice pages are held on the Parliament server www.parliament.uk in Westminster

  2 Select Committee publications1 pages are held on the Publications server www.publications.parliament.uk in Norwich

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judiciary
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to encourage employers to give working magistrates sufficient time off work to fulfil their Bench duties. [32374]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on initiatives to encourage more people on low incomes to become JPs. [32368]

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what initiatives are being taken to broaden the social mix of magistrates. [32375]

  Mr. Wills
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is committed to producing a national strategy for recruitment. His local advisory committees undertake a range of recruitment initiatives and these have delivered a Bench that has equal numbers of men and women and increasingly reflects the ethnic composition of the population. We need to do more to improve the social composition. The national strategy will be our means of delivering this aim. It will be published in the spring.

  Transsexuals
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has for changes to the legal status of transsexual people. [32377]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Issues of concern to transsexual people were considered by the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People. The Government are sympathetic to the issues raised in the report and are considering how to take the matter further

  Child Guardians
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been 150W
  made in setting up an IT system that will enable child guardians to record the details of the children with whom they work. [32378]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Establishment of CAFCASS as a new, unified service provides an opportunity for improved communication and case management across the service. CAFCASS's IT projects has been taken forward in two phases. Phase 1 provided a general infrastructure for CAFCASS. It is operating alongside systems inherited by CAFCASS from its predecessor services, which record case information on children who are the subject of court reports. The plans for Phase 2 provide for development of an integrated system to extend Phase 1 systems and supply improved management information, including case information, and interfaces with other organisations. CAFCASS is currently reviewing its Phase 2 IT strategy to assess immediate and longer term needs in the light of the operating experience it now has.

  Criminal Courts (Reorganisation)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the Auld report recommendations for a middle tier court; and if he will make a statement. [32379]

  Mr. Wills
  A total of 365 responses were received by the end of the period for public comment on 31 January. Of the representations received, a proportion referred to the middle tier court but the exact figure is not yet known. Representations on all the recommendations in Sir Robin Auld's report are now being carefully considered and analysed in detail. Responses from the general public and the main criminal justice stakeholders, subject to their agreement, will be placed on the Lord Chancellor's website www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Parking Spaces
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what car parking spaces are provided and what the average annual
  151W
  cost of providing such spaces is for (a) the Official Solicitor's Office, (b) the Council on Tribunals, (c) the Statutory Publications Office and (d) the Judge Advocate-General's Office. [33657]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Official Solicitor's Office does not provide car-parking spaces.

  (b) The Council on Tribunals has one parking space, the cost of which is included in the rent and not calculated as a separate amount.

  (c) The Statutory Publications Office does not provide car-parking spaces.

  (d) The Office of the Judge Advocate General has three spaces, the cost of which is included in the rent and not calculated as a separate amount.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what car parking spaces are provided and what the average annual cost of providing them is for the(a) Domestic Legal Services, (b) Legal Services Commission, (c) Legal Services Ombudsman and (d) Law Commission. [33658]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) It is not clear which organisation is envisaged in the term 'Domestic Legal Services'.

  (b) The Legal Services Commission has a total of 169 car parking spaces over 19 sites. The estimated annual average cost for providing these spaces is £170,000, or £1,000 per space.

  (c) The Legal Services Ombudsman provides six car-parking spaces at an annual cost of £1,500 each.

  (d) The Law Commission provides no car-parking spaces.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what car parking spaces are provided and what the average annual cost is for providing such spaces to(a) CAFCASS, (b) the Public Guardianship Office and (c) the Public Record Office. [33660]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) CAFCASS' headquarters at Archway Tower has seven parking spaces which cost £3,954. The number and cost of car parking spaces provided for the remainder of CAFCASS's estate is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) The Public Guardianship Office's section of the car park at Archway Tower provides space for 42 cars. These spaces are for the use of contractors, visitors and staff. The Public Guardianship Office pays £25,200 per year to rent this space, which includes a secure bicycle rack.

  (c) The Public Record Office provides 116 car parking spaces for members of the public using its facilities and 106 spaces for staff as its Kew site. In addition, there are four disabled spaces for use by either staff or public. The average annual total cost of providing these spaces is £121,659.

  152W
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many car parking spaces are reserved for judges; what the total cost is of providing such spaces; and what criteria are used for allocating car parking spaces to judges. [33682]

  Mr. Wills
  Data on judicial car parking spaces have been collected for 63 of the largest court buildings. These are shown in the table. These buildings represent 75 per cent. of the Court Service estate. The information for the remainder of the estate is not immediately available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The judicial car parking spaces for the above buildings form part of the site and are not paid for separately. Judges are categorised as essential users of court buildings and car parking spaces are allocated to them on that basis.

  Judicial car parking spaces

  Property name

  Number of spaces

  Basildon Combined Court

  7

  Basingstoke County Court

  6

  Blackfriars Crown Court

  13

  Bournemouth Combined Court

  11

  Bow County Court

  4

  Bradford Combined Court

  12

  Brighton County Court

  6

  Bristol Crown Court

  13

  Cardiff Civil Justice Centre

  11

  Cardiff Crown Court

  8

  Central Criminal Court

  18

  Central London Trial Centre

  14

  Chelmsford Crown Court

  6

  Chester Crown Court

  4

  Chichester Combined Court Hearings

  3

  Derby Combined Court

  5

  Durham Crown Court

  2

  Exeter Combined Court

  2

  GKN House, 22 Kingsway—Public Trust Office

  6

  Great Grimsby Combined Court

  4

  Harrow Crown Court

  8

  Immigration Appellate Authority, Taylor House

  11

  Inner London Sessions House, Newington House

  10

  Ipswich Crown Court

  3

  Isleworth Crown Court

  8

  Kingston upon Hull Combined Court

  6

  Kingston upon Thames Crown Court

  12

  LCD Headquarters, Selborne House

  8

  Leeds Combined Court

  17

  Leicester Crown Court

  10

  Lewes Combined Court

  5

  Luton Crown Court

  3

  Maidstone Combined Court

  14

  Manchester Crown (Crown Square)

  16

  Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court

  7

  Newcastle upon Tyne Combined Court

  13

  Newport Crown Court

  3

  Norwich Combined Court

  11

  Nottingham Combined Court

  12

  Official Referees Courts, St. Dunstans House

  6

  Oxford Combined Court

  9

  Peterborough Combined Court

  6

  Portsmouth Combined Court

  9

  PRFD First Avenue House

  10

  Principal Registry of the Family Division

  6

  Reading Crown Court

  11

  Royal Courts of Justice

  57

  Southwark Crown Court

  21

  Swansea County Court

  7

  Swansea Crown Court

  10

  Teeside Combined Court

  3

  Truro Combined Court

  4

  Worcester Crown Court

  5

  153W

  Judicial car parking spaces

  Property name

  Number of spaces

  York County Court

  3

  York Crown Court

  5

  Grand total

  504

  Magistrates
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had in the past year with employers' organisations to encourage their members to give time off for Bench duties. [33906]

  Mr. Wills
  I have not held any such discussions. However, the issue of gaining support from more employers will be addressed in the national strategy for recruitment, which will be published in the spring.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of magistrates are(a) full-time employed,(b) self employed, (c) part-time workers, (d) retired and (e) unemployed. [33912]

  Mr. Wills
  72.3 per cent. of magistrates are recorded as being in paid employment and 27.7 per cent. are recorded as being "not in paid employment". No distinction is made in our records between full-time and part-time or between retired and unemployed.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the magistracy is aged under(a) 60 and (b) 40. [33914]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor gave a breakdown of the magistracy in his Judicial Appointments annual report 2000–01,(Cmd 5248). The report showed that 4 per cent. of magistrates were aged under 40 and 64.6 per cent. were aged between 40 and 60. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of working magistrates work in(a) the public and (b) the private sectors. [33913]

  Mr. Wills
  Our records on magistrates' occupations are not broken down into public and private sector. The following table provides a breakdown by occupation category. However, this can only be a rough guide to the proportions working in the public and private sectors because some lecturers and teachers will work in the private sector for instance, as will some health care employees.

  Occupational breakdown of magistrates

  Occupation

  Percentage

  Lecturers and teachers

  8.7

  Civil servants

  3.7

  Local government employees

  4.6

  Farmers and other agricultural workers

  1.5

  Health care professionals

  3.8

  Other health care employees

  3.0

  Other professionals

  23.6

  Employees of national companies

  4.7

  Employees of local companies/organisations

  10.0

  Self-employed

  8.8

  Not in paid employment

  27.7

  154W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many full-time employed magistrates have been(a) put onto the reserve list and (b) retired from the bench, in each of the last two years because of difficulties in getting time off for bench duties; and what proportion of working magistrates that represented in each year. [33903]

  Mr. Wills
  In total approximately 18,000 magistrates are in paid employment. In 1999, 182 magistrates resigned citing pressure of work or employment difficulties as the reason. In 2000 the figure was 186 and in 2000–01 (from which year figures were kept by financial year) the figure was 221. That is about 1 per cent. of all employed magistrates each year.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is ensuring that working magistrates have sufficient time off work to fulfil their bench duties. [33902]

  Mr. Wills
  My officials are not normally informed of magistrates experiencing difficulties in obtaining sufficient time off to fulfil their bench duties. That is an issue between the employee and the employer, although the Clerk to the Justices or Secretary to the Advisory Committee will encourage the employer to be more supportive if the magistrate is happy for the Clerk to do so. Therefore I am not in a position to state whether section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is ensuring that working magistrates have sufficient time off work to fulfil their bench duties.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the employers who have discouraged their employees from undertaking Bench duties in the last five years. [33907]

  Mr. Wills
  If magistrates experience difficulties with their employers discouraging them from undertaking Bench duties, the normal course is for the Clerk to the Justices or the Secretary to the Advisory Committee to contact employers to encourage them to be more supportive by persuading them that it benefits them to have employees who are magistrates because of the skills which magistrates develop in the discharge of their judicial duties. It would be unusual for issues between a magistrate and his or her employer to be reported to my officials and no record is kept of the rare instances they are reported.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the provisions of section 51 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 have been used by a magistrate; and what the outcome was in each case. [33908]

  Mr. Wills
  If all attempts by the Clerk to the Justices or Secretary to the Advisory Committee to encourage an employer to be more supportive fail, and a magistrate decides to take his or her employer to an employment tribunal, that is a matter between the employee and the employer. My officials are not normally informed of any cases nor the outcome, nor is any record kept of those rare cases when they take place.
  155W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people from Warrington, North constituency were serving as magistrates in Warrington(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [32254]

  Mr. Wills
  On the latest available information, approximately 57 per cent. of the magistrates currently serving on the Warrington Bench live in the Warrington, North constituency compared to 59 per cent. in 1997.

  Schedule of foreign official visits by Judge Advocate-General 1996–2001

  Date

  Place visited

  Duration

  Purpose of visit

  July 1996

  Canada

  5 days

  Commonwealth law conference

  June 1997

  Hungary

  5 days

  Military law conference, and to advise on UK military law

  August 1997

  Washington DC, USA

  5 days

  To attend international conference on criminal and military law

  November 1997

  West Point and Maxwell Air Force Base, USA

  5 days

  To give a lecture on UK military law and human rights at both institutions

  May 1998

  Romania

  3 days

  To address a NATO seminar on military law

  September 1998

  USA

  Washington DC, USA

  To attend international conference on criminal and military law

  April 1999

  Ankara, Turkey

  4 days

  To address a military conference on military law and human rights

  May 1999

  Estonia

  3 days

  To advise on UK military law (with the Provost Marshal)

  June 1999

  Hungary

  5 days

  Military law conference, and to advise on UK military law

  September 1999

  USA

  Washington DC, USA

  To attend international conference on criminal and military law

  February 2000

  Charlottesville and Georgetown University DC

  5 days

  To give a presentation on UK military law and human rights

  April 2000

  The Hague

  2 days

  Visit to International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia

  September 2000

  Canada (Calgary)

  5 days

  Interview candidates for judicial officer posts with JAG office

  October 2000

  Gibraltar

  3 days

  Interview candidates for judicial officer posts with JAG office

  June 2001

  Hungary

  5 days

  Military law conference and to advise on UK military law

  September 2001

  Copenhagen, Denmark

  5 days

  To attend international conference on criminal and military law

  Note:

  The Judge Advocate General also makes regular visits to his permanent office at Rheindahlen, Germany for official office purposes

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff in her Department work(a) whole-time and (b) for part of their time on matters related to the Northern Ireland Court Service. [32580]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of staff employed by the Northern Ireland Court Service can be broken down as follows:

  Part-time staff: 97 (full-time equivalent—60)

  Full-time staff: 596

  Total staff: 6931

  1 Figure excludes the number of staff on career break. Twenty-one staff on career break; total staff including career break staff—714.

  Reporting Procedures
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reporting procedures exist between the Public Guardianship Office and her own. [33289]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office is part of the Lord Chancellor's Department. He receives regular reports on the operational performance of the Public Guardianship Office (PGO), from the chief executive and is consulted by the chief executive on the handling of operational matters, which could give rise to substantial public, parliamentary or judicial concern. The Head of Policy Group serves as a focal point to provide.

  Judge Advocate-General
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what official foreign visits the Judge Advocate-General has made since his appointment; and what was the purpose of such visits. [32397]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Records are available from 1996 and the information requested is set out in the table.

  advice to Ministers and support the chief executive. He is also, in consultation as necessary, with the ministerial advisory board, responsible for advising Ministers and the Permanent Secretary on the PGO's strategic direction, plans, targets and performance. The ministerial advisory board (MAB), which meets quarterly, was set up to consider strategic issues relevant to the PGO and provide independent advice to Ministers on the strategic direction of the PGO, its governance and its performance, with particular reference to its key performance measures.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reporting procedures exist between the Judge Advocate-General's Office and her own. [33287]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no formal procedures in place between the office of the Judge Advocate General and the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  The Office of the Judge Advocate General is a judicial appointment made by Her Majesty the Queen under Letters Patent, and the work that his office carries out is judicial and quasi-judicial advisory post trial work for the Army and Royal Air Force, and is performed by the Judge Advocate General or by judicial officers appointed by the Lord Chancellor or by the Judge Advocate for that purpose. Since the functions of the Judge Advocate General and his judicial officers are judicial or quasi judicial, reporting is not constitutionally appropriate, although the Judge Advocate General is answerable to the Lord Chancellor in the same circumstances as all other judges within his jurisdiction.
  157W
  The budget and accounts of the Office of the Judge Advocate General are supervised by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the usual way. Sir Hayden Phillips, the Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department, is the accounting officer and is responsible to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office for the propriety of public expenditure incurred by the Office of the Judge Advocate General.

  Court Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training programmes are made available to junior administrative staff in the Court Service. [33299]

  Mr. Wills
  The training programmes available to junior administrative staff in the Court Service are as follows:

  Business skills

  Customer service modules

  Delivering results

  Desk training

  Diversity awareness

  Induction

  IT

  Job specific selection for job holders

  Job specific selection for job holder's development

  Letter writing

  Local safety office

  National Vocational Qualifications

  Open learning

  Personal effectiveness

  Prince's Trust volunteers scheme

  Working with others.

  Green Travel Plans
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what green travel plans are in place for(a) judges, (b) the Court Service, (c) magistrates' courts, and (d) staff in the Department, deployed on (i) freedom of information and (ii) data protection and identity. [33693]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) My Department has no green travel plans in place for judges; our green travel plans are specific to an individual site rather than to any particular group of court users.

  (b) The Court Service has a green travel plan in place at its headquarters building. The Department and its agencies aim to reduce their environmental impacts, such as emissions from vehicles and congestion, from transport use across all its activities. These include travel on business, operation of the car fleet and pool cars, contractors, deliveries and visitors.

  (c) My Department is not directly responsible for magistrates' court buildings as they are owned by local authorities. Information on green travel plans put in place at magistrates' courts by local authorities is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  158W

  (d) My Department has no green travel plans in place for staff in the Department, as deployed on (i) freedom of information or (ii) data protection and identity. Our green travel plans are specific to individual buildings rather than to any particular group of staff.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what green travel plans her Department has for(a) the Land Registry, (b) CAFCASS and (c) the Public Guardianship Office. [33663]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Of the 26 Land Registry offices, 13 have implemented site-specific green travel plans. The remaining 13 offices expect to implement plans before the end of this financial year. There are also Land Registry policies, covering all offices, providing interest-free advances of salary for the purchase of season tickets for travel to work using public transport and for staff wishing to purchase bicycles for travel to work.

  (b) Launched in April 2001, CAFCASS inherited staff with over 100 different terms and conditions. Travel policies for CAFCASS, including green travel plans, will be considered during the process of harmonisation of terms.

  (c) In line with departmental guidelines, the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) offers staff interest-free advances of salary for the purchase of season tickets and for staff wishing to purchase bicycles. To assist those staff travelling to work by bicycle, the PGO has installed a secure bicycle rack at Archway Tower together with shower and locker facilities. Details of public transport routes into Archway and the surrounding area are published on the PGO Intranet.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what green travel plans are in place for(a) the legal services ombudsman's office and (b) the Law Commission. [33681]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The legal services ombudsman has less than 50 people and so does not meet the target criteria for having a green travel plan.

  (b) The Law Commission does not currently have a green travel plan. However, introduction of the Lord Chancellor's Department's green transport plan to its other offices, including the Law Commission, is under consideration.

  Jury Intimidation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department by what date she intends to produce(a) in draft and (b) in published form proposals to tackle intimidation of jurors. [29948]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Northern Ireland Court Service has lead responsibility in consultation with the police for drawing up a policy in relation to countering intimidation of jurors. Preparation of an intimidation policy will be completed by 31 March 2002 and published thereafter.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the Government's policy is on establishing a Human Rights Commission in Britain. [33943]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have not ruled out the possibility of a Human Rights Commission, but we would have to be clear about the role and functions of such a commission and its relationship to the several existing equality commissions. One option is a single, over-arching human rights commission, with a federal structure, to cover all these areas, which requires consideration alongside other proposals.

  During the last Parliament, the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a consultation document seeking views on what form a human rights commission might take. We will consider very carefully any recommendations the Joint Committee may make following this consultation.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what the Government's policy is on monitoring the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998; [33944]

  (2) what resources have been made available to monitor the effects on public authorities of the Human Rights Act 1998. [33942]

  Mr. Wills
  We keep the impact of the Act under continuous review. My Department has a dedicated Human Rights Unit with legal support offering guidance and advice to Government Departments and public authorities, as well as to members of the public, about the Human Rights Act. However, this is not a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department alone, and the Government have made it clear that all Departments must play their part in delivering information and monitoring, including for their public authorities.

  Further details of my Department's activities in this area were contained in my recent memorandum to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which my hon. Friend will have seen.

  Children (Court Proceedings)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) under what statutory powers a court can prevent publication of the identity of children concerned in court proceedings by e-mail; [32162]
  160W
  (2)if he will introduce proposals to improve the protection of the identities of children concerned in court proceedings, with particular reference to electronic communications; [32164]

  (3)under what statutory powers a court can prevent publication of the identity of children concerned in court proceedings in messages on an electronic bulletin board system; [32163]

  (4)under what powers courts can prevent publication of the identity of children concerned in court proceedings in messages on a web page. [32224]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sections 39 and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 restrict publication of the identity of under-18s involved in criminal court proceedings. They apply to print and broadcast media: we do not believe they cover electronic communications.

  We are due to implement further restrictions in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. We believe they will cover electronic communications which can be shown to be addressed to the public or a section of the public.

  Coroners
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many coroners there are; and how many are women. [34895]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are 124 coroners in England and Wales, including 11 women.

  Correspondence
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance his office has provided to Government Departments on dealing with hon. Members' correspondence. [33286]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  In July 2000, my Department published "Handling Correspondence from Members of Parliament: Guidance for Departments", which set out the general principles which Departments should follow when replying to correspondence from hon. Members. In 2001, my Department also published "Handling Correspondence from Members of Parliament: Good Practice Guidance" to promote the sharing of good practice between Departments and agencies and to help raise standards.

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional security measures are planned by his Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31795]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO's fraud investigation team carry out a programme of visits to overseas posts and Departments in the UK to detect, deter and investigate fraud and financial malpractice. They also train staff in fraud awareness and issue anti-fraud guidance. Our internal auditors also follow a demanding schedule of audits both overseas and in the UK.

  The FCO have also introduced new schemes for beating fraud including "whistleblowing" guidance, additional self-audit packages and fraud/malpractice hotline details in pay-slips.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [31775]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office gave him on 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1130W.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the significance of Gibraltar as a UK trading partner. [32020]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 953W.

  Liberia
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Liberia, with specific regard to human rights abuses. [34427]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are very concerned by the worsening conflict between Government forces and the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy dissidents, the resultant humanitarian crisis and the serious human rights situation. We are working hard to resolve instability in the Mano River sub-region and promote greater respect for human rights. We have called on the Presidents of Guinea and Liberia to stop supporting rebel groups which are destabilising each other's countries.

  We are concerned at reports of Liberian forces committing serious human rights abuses against civilians, in particular, internally displaced persons. There is an increasing flow of refugees into Sierra Leone. The EU opened Article 96 talks with Liberia in November 2001, demanding greater respect for human rights before resuming EU development funding. The UK and EU have called for legal investigations to be launched into all
  162W
  human rights abuses, more human rights training for security personnel and the creation of an independent human rights commission.

  We are continuing to provide humanitarian assistance to Liberia. Over the past 18 months we have contributed £1 million to the Consolidated Appeal for West Africa, some of which is allocated to Liberia. All of this assistance is channelled through NGOs, not the Government of Liberia.

  HIV/AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision he is making to respond to the forthcoming request from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for a report on the UK's implementation of the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights. [34133]

  Peter Hain
  The HIV/AIDS pandemic is one of the most serious threats to health in modern times. Globally, over 40 million people live with HIV/AIDS. Tackling this crisis, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, is a major priority for this Government.

  The Government fully supports the UN's efforts to highlight the importance of the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights. We stand ready to contribute to the planned 2003 report to the UN Commission on Human Rights on implementation of the guidelines, once a request has been received.

  FCO Telecommunications Network
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many embassies the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network hardware has been installed in each of the last six months; in how many he expects it to be installed in the next six months; and if he will make a statement. [34623]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network (FTN) provide two main services for our diplomatic missions overseas. One is connection to a telecommunications network; the second is the provision of a telephone system (PBX). Provision of these services entails installation of hardware at our missions. In each of the last six months FTN hardware has been installed as shown.

  Month

  Telephone systems

  Network connections

  Total installations

  August 2001

  5

  4

  9

  September 2001

  5

  12

  17

  October 2001

  9

  8

  17

  November 2001

  8

  5

  13

  December 2001

  7

  17

  24

  January 2002

  7

  9

  16

  Total

  41

  55

  96

  Work planned for the next six months should see FTN hardware installed as shown.
  163W

  Month

  Telephone systems

  Network connections

  Total installations

  February 2002

  7

  13

  20

  March 2002

  7

  18

  25

  April 2002

  4

  18

  22

  May 2002

  10

  20

  30

  June 2002

  9

  11

  20

  July 2002

  4

  10

  14

  Total

  41

  90

  131

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place the contract for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network in the Library; and if he will make a statement [34622]

  Mr. MacShane
  Under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information we are unable to deposit the document.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the date upon which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network will be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [34621]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network (FTN) provide two main services for our diplomatic missions overseas. One is connection to a telecommunications network; the second is the provision of a telephone system (PBX). These services are being provided under a 10-year PFI contract, signed in May 2000, at which time it was envisaged that the network would cover 136 missions by May 2002. The scope of the network has now increased to cover 210 missions, with work due for completion before the end of 2002. It will be 2004 before the target for PBX replacement is reached. In the interim period, reliable telephone connectivity between our missions and UK offices will be achieved by using a mix of new and legacy PBXs.

  British Detainees
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if all British detainees in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Cuba have been allowed contact with family members in the UK. [34933]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The International Committee of the Red Cross has access to detainees in both Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay, and is able to pass messages from family members to the detainees and vice versa.

  Ian Stillman
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure the British high commission in New Delhi provides interpreter help for Ian Stillman; and if he will make a statement. [34982]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is for Mr. Stillman's lawyer to make the necessary application to the court for an interpreter. It is not the policy of the FCO to provide, from official funds, interpreters, or signers for the deaf, for individuals in court cases abroad.
  164W
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many consular visits there have been to Ian Stillman since he lost his appeal. [34981]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No consular visits have taken place since the appeal judgment was announced on 11 January. The last consular visit was due to take place on 19 December but Mr. Stillman was in Shimla receiving dental treatment. The next consular visit is due on 19 March.

  Consular visits to British nationals in jail in India normally take place on a quarterly basis.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the proposed Green Paper on private military companies outlining options for the control of private military companies; and if he will make a statement. [35976]

  Mr. Straw
  We have today published a consultation document entitled: "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation".

  This paper originates in a request made by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its second report on Sierra Leone. I regret very much that the Government did not meet the timetable originally promised for this document.

  Over the years the House has concerned itself from time to time with the activities of freelance mercenary soldiers. There were a number of disturbing and sometimes disgraceful incidents in Africa during the 1960s and 1970s. These gave rise to justifiable indignation and a strong wish to curb this unsavoury business.

  The situation has changed since the 1970s. Africa's problems are different and so also is the nature of outside intervention. In some cases at least it is companies more than individuals who have been at issue there recently.

  The term "private military companies" covers many different sorts of organisation. Some are respectable and well-established names; some are transient and not always reputable companies. Public attention has focused most sharply on companies who have provided soldiers ready to take part in combat. There are many different opinions—some of them strongly held about such activities, an issue which is explored in the paper.

  These sort of activities attract attention and controversy but they are neither the most numerous, nor necessarily the most important part of the private military sector. A growing number of companies who would not take part directly in combat nevertheless provide important military services such as training, planning, logistics, weapons procurement and intelligence. In today's world such services can be significant force multipliers and may have a considerable impact on fighting capability. It is timely that we should consider this growing industry and look at the question of whether some form of regulation would be appropriate.

  Mercenary activity is an old phenomenon but a corporate sector providing military services is relatively new. Given the professionalism and high reputation of Britain's armed services it is not surprising that this is an

  165W
  area in which British companies are active. The idea of regulating this sector is also relatively new. It raises many difficult legal and practical issues. There are many different interests and points of view of which we should take account. We therefore wish to embark on a wide process of consultation before formulating a policy. Against this background the paper outlines the issues, the recent history and the current debate, and finally sets out some of the options for regulation—but does not make any specific proposals. Before doing that I would like to hear the views of those directly concerned and indeed of all interested parties.

  This is a serious subject, which merits careful examination. The private military sector is a growing phenomenon, which could develop in a helpful, or an unhelpful way. I shall be surprised if we emerge from the debate with the conclusion that the best solution is to do nothing at all.

  I look forward to receiving contributions to the debate from Members of this House and elsewhere—and I will welcome views from the widest range of sources. I hope that in due course, as the discussion develops this House will also provide time for a full and open debate.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technical programme his Department conducts to assure the safety and serviceability of the Trident warhead; and if he will make a statement. [36107]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government attaches great importance to maintaining the safety and serviceability of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons. The Strategic Defence Review in 1998 confirmed the need for a robust capability to underwrite the safety and reliability of Trident, in the absence of nuclear testing. A scientific methodology is being developed to continue to give this assurance with high confidence. A detailed technical review of the scientific methodology behind this programme will be published shortly in a major scientific journal.

  To ensure that we continue to be confident of the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons, it is essential to understand the properties of warhead materials such as high explosive and plutonium under a very wide range of physical conditions, and how these properties change with age. Confidence in the safety and performance of Trident is based ultimately on predictions from high fidelity numerical models run on super computers. The Atomic Weapons Establishment has recently announced a major investment in a new super computer that will substantially upgrade its capability. However, experimental studies are still essential to validate the computational models and improve understanding of basic theory. As a continuing part of this programme the UK will shortly collaborate with the US in conducting a plutonium hydrodynamic experiment at the U1A facility in Nevada. This experiment will not produce nuclear yield and will be fully consistent with our obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Historical nuclear test data and information from the forensic examination of warheads withdrawn from the stockpile provide further information for the process.

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to his German counterpart about the German Parliament's approval of the A400M Project. [33088]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 January 2002,Official Report, columns 215-16W. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence raised the A400M project with his German counterpart when they met on 18 January and since then, during a telephone exchange when he again expressed the hope that the issue could be resolved quickly.

  NATO Budget
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list common budget contributions by NATO members to the three NATO budgets in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002; and if he will indicate the provisional projections for future years. [33193]

  Mr. Hoon
  Budget ceilings for NATO's three budgets were set as follows:

  Security investment programme (million of NAU)1

  Military budget (million of NAU)2

  Military budget (million of NAU)3

  Civil budget (million of Belgian francs)

  1997

  183.5

  176.3

  —

  5,721

  1998

  183.5

  178.9

  —

  5,847

  1999

  183.5

  188.7

  —

  5,996

  2000

  183.5

  188.8

  15.6

  6,080

  2001

  185.0

  191.6

  17.7

  6,253

  2002

  185.0

  192.8

  16.8

  4euro 166.9 million

  1 The value of NATO Accounting Units has varied from £2.680 in January 1997 to £2.122 in January 2002.

  2 These figures include an account supporting NATO's Airborne Early Warning Force to which the UK does not contribute. Our contribution to this force is made in kind, by the assignment to SACEUR of the RAF's E3D Sentry aircraft.

  3 Post-Kosovo, a separate military budget account to cover Balkans operations was established.

  4 For 2002, the civil budget was set in euros—euro 161.4 million, plus euro 5.5 million for additional security enhancements at NATO HQ required after 11 September 2001.

  Ceilings for 2003 have still to be settled, but we would expect them to be of the same order as those for 2002.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts regarding NATO member contributions to the 2002 NATO budgets; and if he will make a statement. [33192]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had no discussions with NATO Defence Ministers on contributions to the three NATO budgets for 2002. The 2002 budget ceilings for the NATO Security Investment Programme and the Military Budget were noted during the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting on 7 June 2001, when the UK was represented by our Permanent Representative. NATO's Civil Budget is a matter for the Foreign Secretary.

  IT
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total expenditure of his Department on IT systems and support in each year from
  167W
  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). [33684]

  Dr. Moonie
  Total expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on IT systems and support, including hardware and software, furniture, ancillary equipment and licence fees has been as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  506.688

  1998–99

  554.750

  1999–2000

  509.406

  2000–01

  478.663

  2001–02

  1379.966

  1 Covering period April 2001 to January 2002

  The additional information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am therefore unable to provide a substantive answer on that element in accordance with Exemption 9 (voluminous and vexatious requests) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Submarine Officers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 337W, on submarine officers, what the specific disciplines necessary to conduct a warfare officer's first appointment are; and if he will make a statement. [33857]

  Mr. Ingram
  Before taking up their first appointment as a warfare officer in a submarine, officers will have completed common training with their surface flotilla counterparts in naval general training, which includes navigational instruction. Thereafter, those selected will receive four months shore training in nuclear physics and engineering pertinent to the type of nuclear reactor fitted to the class of submarine to which they are being appointed. They will also receive training in submarine warfare and general engineering systems.

  On completion of this shore training, all warfare officers will join their first submarine in a training billet where they will spend the next 12-18 months receiving comprehensive training in all aspects of the individual submarine's systems, standard operating procedures, and emergency operating procedures. At every step they undertake practical and oral examination boards, chaired by the commanding officer, to ensure that they have achieved an appropriate standard of training and expertise. This entitles them to be awarded their submarine badge.

  Having been awarded their submarine badge, and having had a further period of consolidation on board a submarine, warfare officers will complete six months further shore training. Once this is completed, they become qualified to pilot a submarine on the surface and navigate the boat while submerged close inshore.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 337W, on submarine officers,
  168W
  what the maximum length of time allowed is between a naval officer having a physical assessment and joining a ship; and if he will make a statement; [33859]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 337W, on submarine officers, what tests a submarine officer undergoes in the physical assessment conducted before joining a vessel; and if he will make a statement; [33860]

  (3) what tests a naval officer undergoes in the physical assessment conducted before joining a vessel; and if he will make a statement; [33919]

  (4) what assessment was made of the physical ability of Lieutenant Ashley Philpott and Lieutenant Ian Tabberer before joining HMS Triumph; and if he will make a statement. [33921]

  Mr. Ingram
  All naval personnel are medically screened when they enter the service. The medical examination on entry is valid until an individual reaches the age of 30. After this, five yearly medical examinations are carried out as a matter of routine to age 50. Thereafter, medical examinations are undertaken at two yearly intervals the normal medical category for an officer is P2—fit for worldwide service. This category is common for all Royal Naval personnel, including submariner officers. Service medical examinations assess an individual's physical condition (upper and lower body), hearing, eyesight, mental capacity and emotional stability.

  There is no formal requirement for personnel to undergo a physical assessment at the time they are notified of their re-appointment or when they join a new unit. However, medical documents are reviewed on these occasions and a medical examination is carried out if an assessment is not 'in date', or if personnel are being appointed to the submarine service for the first time. All submariners are required to qualify for service in submarines by undertaking submarine escape tank training (SETT) and to remain qualified by undergoing SETT at intervals of between three and four and a half years. Personnel must be in medical category P2 to attend SETT and are required to undergo a medical re-examination as part of their training. Many submariners undertake SETT at lesser intervals.

  The maximum length of time between a service officer having a medical examination and joining a ship will vary depending on personal circumstances and the length of training patters and sea/shore appointments, but for submarine officers, this would be up to three to four and a half years. However, a range of other medical assessments such as classified radiation worker medicals, hearing tests etc. are also periodically carried out depending on the specific nature of an individual's employment. Furthermore, naval personnel receive a full range of primary medical care through the Royal Navy Medical Service. This includes treatments as well as provisions such as vaccinations and well man or woman clinics. Where a medical condition becomes apparent during a primary health care visit, an individual's medical status, including their fitness for sea service, is reviewed as a matter of routine.

  Although it is inappropriate to comment on individuals, naval personnel are required to be medically fit for their duties before and during appointment to any unit, including submarines. It is incumbent on all personnel to

  169W
  bring to the attention of the appropriate authorities, at any time, any material factor including those of a medical nature, that may affect their ability to carry out their duties.

  In situations where an individual's medical condition has changed sufficiently to warrant medical downgrading or recategorisation, one of the factors that is taken into consideration is whether they are able to continue with their present duties in their current unit. This applies particularly to submariners given the environmental conditions that are peculiar to submarines and their limited medical facilities.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been received about the(a) suitability and (b) condition of MOD married quarters each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [34034]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of complaints received by Defence Housing Executive about the condition of properties is as follows:

  Year

  Complaints

  April 1998 to March 1999

  92

  April 1999 to March 2000

  77

  April 2000 to March 2001

  50

  April 2001 to September 2001

  28

  Figures for 1997–98 are not available

  Separate records of complaints about suitability are not held centrally and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Suitable accommodation for entitled service personnel is defined by type. There are five property types for officers and three types for other ranks. In general, rank and appointment determines the property type allocated to officers and family size determines the type for other ranks. There are special standards for high cost areas such as London. Joint service property scales lay down specifications for every property type, and a four-tier grading system is used to determine level of charges in properties which do not fully comply with the specifications.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for(a) serious neglect and (b) vandalism against MOD houses have been made in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [34607]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive, which manages service families' accommodation in Great Britain, has no formal record of the number of complaints made about serious neglect or vandalism. The incidence of vandalism is low on occupied estates and is dealt with as and when it arises. Unoccupied estates, awaiting disposal or upgrade, are kept as secure as is practicable. Local or Ministry of Defence police patrol sites, where this is considered necessary.
  170W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent upgrading MOD married quarters in each constituency since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [34610]

  Dr. Moonie
  A breakdown of upgrade expenditure by constituency is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a total of £95.7 million has been spent on the upgrade of service families housing in England, Scotland and Wales since 1997. This can be broken down as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–98

  12.4

  1998–99

  13.6

  1999–2000

  27.8

  2000–01

  41.9

  These figures do not include new builds, demolition/rebuild or PFI projects.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who manages MOD housing in each constituency; and if he will make a statement. [34609]

  Dr. Moonie
  Services families' accommodation in Great Britain is managed by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE). The DHE was set up in 1995, bringing the three services' housing functions into a single management unit.

  Services families' accommodation in Northern Ireland is managed by the Families' Housing Service responsible to the GOC Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on private sector housing for service personnel in the last 12 months, broken down by constituency; and if he will make statement. [34033]

  Dr. Moonie
  The table shows the expenditure on substitute accommodation in Great Britain rented by the Ministry of Defence from the private sector when accommodation according to entitlement could not otherwise be provided for service personnel and their families. Figures relate to the period 1 January to 31 December 2001. A breakdown by constituency could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £000

  Family accommodation

  Single accommodation

  Rent

  9,361

  22,304

  Fees

  212

  1,272

  Council tax, utilities, telephone line rental, etc.

  933

  3,432

  Total

  10,506

  27,008

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are seeking married quarters accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [34031]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) is required to provide, on request, family accommodation for entitled service personnel within 10 miles of their duty station and by their required date. In general, houses are kept waiting for service families, rather than service
  171W
  families kept waiting for housing. During 2000–01, over 97 per cent. of entitled service families were housed within 28 days of their required date (against a target of 92 per cent.) and a similar achievement is expected for 2001–02.

  When DHE accommodation is unavailable, substitute service families accommodation (SSFA) is provided, by DHE, from the private rental market.

  Alvis 4 Mamba Vehicles
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made to replace the Army's fleet of Alvis 4 Mamba vehicles. [34403]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 858W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  Location of UK regular forces overseas 1 January 2000—1 December 2001

  2000

  1 Jan.

  1 Feb.

  1 March

  1 April

  1 May

  1 June

  1 July

  1 Aug.

  1 Sept.

  1 Oct.

  1 Nov.

  1 Dec.

  Total overseas

  39,888

  40,841

  40,641

  42,708

  42,855

  43,082

  42,922

  41,389

  44,704

  44,931

  44,173

  43,754

  Europe

  29,318

  29,866

  29,076

  28,818

  28,386

  26,946

  25,332

  25,416

  25,740

  25,301

  26,969

  26,961

  Cyprus

  3,610

  3,590

  3,566

  3,631

  3,604

  3,525

  3,514

  3,626

  3,641

  3,687

  3,705

  3,686

  Gibraltar

  413

  429

  473

  457

  407

  396

  412

  418

  424

  429

  427

  407

  Other Mediterranean, near east and Gulf

  1,457

  1,449

  1,296

  1,502

  1,615

  1,606

  1,074

  1,011

  995

  966

  1,531

  1,537

  Far East

  295

  297

  300

  297

  279

  292

  938

  926

  904

  890

  289

  338

  Other locations

  4,795

  5,210

  5,930

  8,003

  8,564

  10,317

  11,652

  9,992

  13,000

  13,658

  11,252

  10,825

  2001

  1 Jan.

  1 Feb.

  1 March

  1 April

  1 May

  1 June

  1 July

  1 Aug.

  1 Sept.

  1 Oct.

  1 Nov.

  1 Dec.

  Total overseas

  37,658

  39,378

  39,378

  38,898

  37,829

  38,695

  40,922

  40,958

  43,562

  47,020

  44,292

  43,044

  Europe

  24,047

  24,290

  23,275

  22,948

  22,520

  21,811

  21,013

  21,593

  20,739

  19,600

  20,335

  23,924

  Cyprus

  3,455

  3,565

  3,429

  3,659

  3,653

  3,516

  3,491

  3,625

  3,150

  3,708

  3,560

  3,566

  Gibraltar

  452

  474

  584

  485

  463

  473

  464

  462

  401

  434

  408

  414

  Other Mediterranean, near east and Gulf

  1,382

  1,522

  1,694

  1,553

  1,347

  1,576

  2,274

  2,538

  3,801

  9,520

  8,804

  4,388

  Far East

  308

  325

  276

  273

  266

  262

  280

  279

  280

  275

  278

  283

  Other locations

  8,014

  9,202

  10,120

  9,980

  9,680

  11,057

  13,400

  12,461

  15,191

  13,483

  10,907

  10,469

  Chinook Inquiry
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he will take as a result of the House of Lords Committee inquiry into the Chinook helicopter crash in 1994. [35336]

  Mr. Ingram
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 856, this is a complex issue. We are now studying the report in detail, and will make a full response in due course.

  Former Service Personnel
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to ensure that service personnel are equipped to cope with civilian life when they leave the services. [35270]

  Mr. Ingram
  Resettlement and career transition services for those leaving the regular armed forces are core elements of my Department's Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy (AFOPS). The range of services that currently exist to assist service personnel with the process of re-entering civilian life includes

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the cost to the defence budget of the emergency deployment to Northern Ireland in each financial year since 1991–92. [34860]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 348W, to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws).

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many forces personnel have been committed overseas in each month since January 2000; and where. [34832]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of UK regular forces located overseas since January 2000 are given in the table. These figures are published twice yearly in TSP6 "Global Deployment of Service Personnel", which is held in the Library of the House.

  housing and finance briefings, workshops, seminars, relevant training and assistance in job-finding. The range of activities and the amount of time available to individuals to undertake them depends on the length of time spent in the regular armed forces. The most comprehensive service is available to those with at least five years `reckonable' service, although those who are medically discharged at any time after the completion of basic training are also eligible for the full service. These services are currently provided in the form of a partnership between my Department and the Coutts Consulting Group, and are known as the Career Transition Partnership (CTP). A job-finding service is offered for those who have at least three years of reckonable service. A lesser level of support is available to those who have served less than three years in the armed forces, and who are not therefore eligible for the CTP. The CTP commenced operations on 12 October 1998, and has its own dedicated website, www.ctp.org.uk.

  A Veterans Advice Unit also exists and provides a single point of contact for ex-service personnel seeking advice on where to obtain expert help on individual issues.

  Freefall Bombs
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of gravity bombs made in the UK were for(a) war stock and (b) the longer term in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 2000–01. [31827]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1998–99 and 2000–01 no freefall bombs, sometimes referred to as "gravity bombs", were manufactured to supplement war reserve stock. In the same periods, purchases were made to support training, and for development purposes. Of these, less than 3 per cent. restricted to non-explosive practice bombs, were manufactured outside the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 21W, on departmental expenditure, if he will make a statement about the increase in his departmental expenditure on commercial and HMSO publications since 1997–98. [32286]

  Dr. Moonie
  Procurement of newspapers, magazines and periodicals is not managed centrally. Instead it is cascaded to budget holders. Therefore the reason for and decision to procure is left to budget holders with the requirement that such purchases should be properly scrutinised, accounted for and undertaken in the most cost-effective manner.

  The 2000–01 outturn is atypical. Expenditure in 2001–02 is currently expected to be £7.5 million, which is very much in line with 1999–2000 outturn. But, given varying requirements, some fluctuation in this area of expenditure from year to year is to be expected as can be seen from patterns of previous expenditure.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 599W, if he will specify the appropriate guidance to the UK forces operating in Afghanistan to ensure compliance with the UK's international legal obligations; and if prisoners captured in Afghanistan by UK forces will be accorded prisoner of war status under the Geneva Convention. [35032]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am withholding the specific details of the guidance referred to, in accordance with Exemption (1a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Whether any detainee is a prisoner of war depends on the facts of each individual case. It is for the Detaining Power in the first instance to take a view.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what progress has been made in securing commitment from the Turkish Government to take over the UK-led ISAF command in Afghanistan; [33188]

  (2) what other countries have offered to take over the UK-led ISAF command in Afghanistan. [33189]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are working closely with Turkey and a number of other countries on the handing over of the command of the International Security Assistance Force.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the status is of the partnering agreement between the MOD and Royal Ordnance; and if it is his policy to guarantee indigenous supply of ammunition. [33025]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Framework Partnering Agreement between BAE Systems RO Defence and the Ministry of Defence was signed in December 1999 and has been running successfully for two years. During this period both sides have met their commitments. The policy relating to the supply of ammunition ensures that the ammunition is safe and suitable for use, and provides both value for money and security of supply.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with BAE Systems concerning the closure of ROF Birtley. [33024]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has held no direct discussions with BAE Systems on the future of the RO Defence (ROD) site at Birtley. The MOD is aware that ROD is conducting a review of its manufacturing strategy and this review includes the options for the Birtley site. It is expected that the outcome of this review will be announced at the end of February 2002.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on Royal Ordnance's policy relating to the TACAS project and the supply of hardware from indigenous bases. [33026]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am not aware of any representations being made to the Ministry of Defence on Royal Ordnance's policy relating to the Tubed Artillery Conventional Ammunition System (TACAS) project. The TACAS project has only just entered the assessment phase. RO Defence, as the assessment phase prime contractor, is reviewing possible solutions, from a worldwide range of sources, to meet the TACAS requirement. On current plans, a decision on the way forward is not expected to be made until autumn 2004.

  Ammunition Supplies
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the MOD's ammunition supplies over the next five years will be sourced from overseas(a) directly and (b) indirectly from a UK supplier. [33027]

  Dr. Moonie
  The complete information requested on future supplies is not available. Many ammunition requirements have either not yet been tendered, are currently subject to tender evaluation and/or have not been placed to contract.

  During the past year, the proportion of the Ministry of Defence's ammunition supplies obtained directly from overseas was approximately 8 per cent. by value. The remaining 92 per cent. was sourced from UK suppliers, largely Royal Ordnance. Data on ammunition supplies sourced from overseas via a UK supplier is not readily available.

  Computer Hacking
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in 2001 attempts were
  175W
  made to gain unauthorised access to computers in his Department by hacking; and of those how many were successful. [32740]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Ministry of Defence, in common with any organisation that is connected to the internet, is subject to widespread and frequent attempts to probe its electronic boundaries. There is no evidence of any successful incursion from an external source to any Departmental computer system.

  During 2001, 12 incidents of computer hacking were reported, of which two were website defacements and 10 were internal incursions. None of these had any impact on the conduct of military operations or other core Defence business.

  Pakistan Ordnance Factories
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what UK-based training was provided by Royal Ordnance for engineers and staff of Pakistan Ordnance Factories in relation to munitions and weapons manufactured by POF under licensed production deals agreed with Royal Ordnance prior to 1987. [32280]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the 1970s, prior to the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance Factories (ROF), assistance was provided to the Pakistan Ordnance Factories by ROF. This assistance was related to technology transfer and training for the manufacturing of the 105 mm L64 Tungsten core Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot tank ammunition. The Ministry of Defence is continuing to ascertain the exact amount of training provided under these arrangements.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [34212]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reported cases of stolen equipment are held centrally on a summary basis only and relate to suspected theft by Crown Personnel and contractors of stores and equipment usually recorded, especially in respect of lower value items, as multiples or combinations of items such as tools, items of clothing, foodstuffs etc. The Ministry of Defence does not keep fully detailed records of individual or non-aggregated items valued at less than £50 proven to have been stolen or recorded as lost. The information requested therefore could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tritium
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has made to obtain tritium supplies in the event that tritium production is halted in the UK. [34000]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK has sufficient stocks of tritium to meet the needs of the Trident programme for the foreseeable future.

  HMS St. Albans
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS St. Albans will enter service in September. [34401]

  Dr. Moonie
  HMS St. Albans is planned to enter service in September, on completion of her current weapon equipment set-to-work and trials programmes.

  Military Demonstration (Copehill Down)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature of the demonstration of military capability given to the Afghan Government's Ministers at Copehill Down on 1 February. [34417]

  Mr. Hoon
  General Fahim Khan and a team from the Afghan Interim Administration visited the United Kingdom between 29 January and 3 February for discussions with the United Kingdom Government. They also paid visits to a number of units of the British Army.

  The demonstration they witnessed was of a company attack in an urban environment, represented by a mock-up of a village in Copehill down training area. The attack consisted of indirect fire using battlefield simulation, sustained small arms and main armament engagements supported by tanks, from the edge of, and in, Copehill Down village. The demonstration lasted approximately thirty minutes. The Afghan visitors then had the opportunity to meet the troops involved and view their equipment.

  Procurement
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on agreements reached at the UK/French Government's industry conference on defence procurement. [34415]

  Dr. Moonie
  At the France/UK Government and Industry Conference held on 29 January, the French and UK Ministries of Defence agreed to examine practical measures to improve access to each others' markets. These include: exchanging data on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); holding another conference addressed specifically at SMEs; exploring the potential to conduct international co-operative PH projects; and assessing the extent of defence trade between the UK and France.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many war pensions were granted by the War Pensions Agency to armed forces personnel last year. [34558]

  Dr. Moonie
  A claim for war disablement pension may only be made after discharge from the armed forces.

  The total number of war pensions granted by the War Pensions Agency from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 was 7,209.

  Service Pay
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rates of annual pay are for(a) a private in the

  177W
  Army and (b) a marine in the Royal Marines (i) at commencement of basic training and (ii) once basic training has been completed, at age (A) 17, (B) 18, (C) 19, (D) 20 and (E) 21 years. [34960]

  Mr. Ingram
  All adult private soldiers and marines (aged 17 and above) who enter the Army or Royal Marines receive an annual pay rate of £10,344.10, irrespective of age. On completion of appropriate training (basic/trade) or, in the case of Army recruits, after 26 weeks if this is sooner, they move on to the next pay rate which is £12,070.55 per annum. The pay rates quoted are for the current year 2001–02.

  Human Rights Cases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the legal cases brought against his Department and the armed forces since 1997 citing(a) the European Convention of Human Rights and (b) the Human Rights Act 1998, stating in each case (i) whether the case was found for the plaintiff or for his Department, or settled out of court, (ii) the net cost to his Department of fighting the case, including of any damages paid, (iii) action taken to, pursuant similar cases being brought in the future and (iv) the cost of that action. [34830]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The Ministry of Defence does not record separately those cases brought against the Department raising issues under the European Convention of Human Rights or the Human Rights Act 1998. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Civilian Contractors (Gulf)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his response to the recommendation in paragraph 92 of the seventh report of the Defence Committee, session 1999–2000, concerning civilian contractors who served in the Gulf; whether he intends to make provision to compensate Paul Connolly; and if he will make a statement. [34915]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence of those members of the armed forces pension scheme who retired between 1975 and 1977, how many(a) survive and (b) are survived by a widow or widower to whom a pension is paid. [33619]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the armed forces pension scheme(a) for existing service personnel and (b) for those who have already left the services of paying full half pensions to surviving widows or widowers for the whole of their remaining lives notwithstanding re-marriage. [32764]
  178W
  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army service personnel have been granted war disablement pensions since the earliest date for which he recently examined the records. [32678]

  Dr. Moonie
  A claim for war disablement pension may be made only after discharge from the armed forces. The War Pensions Agency is responsible for administration of the War Pensions Scheme.

  Information on war disablement pensions in payment to former members of each service is not available. However, as at 31 December 2001 a total of 223,000 war disablement pensions were in payment.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 857W, on service pensions, if he will make a statement on the findings of his inquiries when they are completed. [35739]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will provide the hon. Member with further advice first when we have completed our work to try to clarify precisely when the problem arose and then later when we have a clearer idea of the numbers of service personnel affected.

  Work to try to establish the start-point for the error should be completed in a few weeks. Establishing the numbers affected is expected to take significantly longer. The publicity given to the problem has already generated a considerable number of inquiries and we will deal with these as quickly as possible.

  Organophosphate Pesticides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the international studies of the effect of exposure to organophosphate pesticides, with particular reference to their use in the Gulf War, which are under review in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [35404]

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

  ASRAAM Project
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the ASRAAM Project. [34402]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile entered service at the end of January 2002, with the delivery of the first batch of missiles.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Minimum Voting Age
  Bob Spink
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, if he will make a statement on the Commission's plans for changing the minimum age of voting. [34047]

  Mr. Beith
  I understand from the Chairman of the Electoral Commission that the Commission has no such plans but does intend to look in due course at the minimum voting age as part of its review programme of electoral law and practice. Any change would require legislation.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in each of the last four years giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34301]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held centrally. The costs of collating it would be disproportionate.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what legal costs have been incurred by her Department in each of the last four years. [34282]

  Dr. Howells
  The legal costs incurred by the Department for the years in question are shown in the following table:

  £

  1998–991

  550,018

  1999–20001

  587,418

  2000–011

  998,901

  2001–022

  783,043

  1Outturn

  2To date

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by her Department and how much reclaimed. [34456]
  180W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department's total expenditure on hospitality is shown in the table. The figures exclude the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies. The information requested on food and alcohol is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  1997–98

  17,230

  1998–99

  28,688

  1999–2000

  32,533

  2000–01

  50,891

  2001–02 spend to date

  24,311

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if she will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if she will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34381]

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

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the publications issued by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34197]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the cost and circulation of each document could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. I have, however, included the overall yearly figures spent on publications during the period.

  £

  1998–99

  288,100

  1999–2000

  448,238

  2000–01

  448,140

  2001–02

  1170,664

  1To date

  DCMS publications 1998–99

  The Eyre Review

  Export of Works of Art 1997–98

  Response to the Select Committee on the Multimedia Revolution

  Creative Industries Mapping Document

  Departmental Annual Report 1998

  Common Wealth and Museums Report

  Digital Convergence Green Paper

  Portable Antiquities Annual Report

  Building a Global Audience

  Government Response to the LIC Report

  DCMS/Wolfson Fund Annual Report 1997–98

  Children's Play Leaflet

  National Lottery Information Leaflet

  New Opportunities Fund Consultation Document

  181W

  Interfaith Millennium Leaflet Reprint

  Museums in the Learning Age

  Sustainable Tourism Document

  Tomorrow's Tourism Strategy Report

  DCMS publications 1999–2000

  Government Art Collection Leaflet

  Export of Works of Art

  Government Art Collection Conditions of Loan Booklet

  Portable Antiquities Annual Report

  World Heritage Sites

  Treasure Annual Report

  Finding Our Past Leaflet

  Building a Global Audience

  The Future Funding of the BBC

  Review of the BBC's Financial Projections

  Creative Industries—Report on the Creative Industries Finance Conference

  Creative Industries—Exports: Our Hidden Potential

  Creative Industries—Internet Inquiry: Snapshot of a rolling wave

  Creative Industries—Your Creative Future

  Creative Industries—UK Television Exports Inquiry

  Annual Report 2000

  Local Cultural Strategies

  PAT 10—Policy Action Team 10: Report to the Social Exclusion Unit

  A Sporting Future For All

  Libraries for All: Social Inclusion in Public Libraries

  The White Book—Option Appraisal of Expenditure Decision: A Guide for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its Sponsored Bodies

  Consumers Call the Tune—The Impact of New Technologies on the Music Industry

  Report on the DCMS/Wolfson Fund 1998–99

  Libraries and the Regions—A discussion paper

  Appraisal of Annual Library Plans 1999

  British Library Review

  Regional Consortium Leaflet

  Efficiency and Effectiveness of Government-sponsored Museums and Galleries

  Report of the Tourism Consumer Group

  Guidance on Disposals of Historic Buildings

  DCMS publications 2000–01

  Treasure Annual Report

  Vacant Plinth Advisory Panel Report

  Broadcasting Command Paper

  Review of the Transparency of the BBC

  Creative Industries Finance Booklet

  DCMS Annual Report 1999–2000

  Learning Power of Museums

  Government Art Collection—Conditions of Loan Booklet

  182W

  Public Appointments Guidance

  Tax Relief for Charities Booklet

  Music Industry Report

  Library Standards Report

  Coalfields and the Lottery Report

  Museums Education Report

  Museums Social Inclusion Report

  New Opportunities Fund Consultation Paper

  Better Public Buildings

  A Sporting Future for All

  Tourism Summit Leaflet

  Creative Industries Mapping Document 2001

  DCMS Recruitment Booklet

  The Government's Plan for Sport

  Culture and Creativity

  Local Cultural Strategies

  Music Industries Document: Consumers Call the Tune

  Marching Into the Millennium

  DCMS publications 2001–02

  Portable Antiquities Annual Report

  A Vision for Culture On line

  London Open House leaflet

  Banking On A Hit Report

  Cricket Disorder Report

  Operation of the National Lottery—Select Committee Response

  Staging International Sports Events—Select Committee Response

  Tourism—the Hidden Giant and Foot and Mouth—Select Committee Response

  Summer Supplementary Estimates

  Lottery Achievements—The First Seven Years

  A Force for Our Future—The Government Statement on the Historic Environment

  Library and Information Matters—Report

  DCMS Publicity Guidelines

  DCMS Event Guidelines

  Report of the Gambling Review Body

  Digital TV—Information for Landlords

  CIEPAG—Achievements leaflet

  Media Ownership Rules Consultation paper

  Winter Supplementary Estimates

  Viewers Panel Report

  English National Stadium Review

  Public Appointments registration form

  Public Reappointments booklet

  DCMS Recruitment literature reprint

  Audio Visual Industries Training Group Report

  Honours Guidance Binder

  Equal Opportunities Document Reprint

  DCMS Identity Guidelines

  Communications White Paper—Select Committee Response

  Biennial Conservation Report

  Creative Industries Finance Conference Report.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34170]
  183W
  Dr. Howells
  The costs of external accountancy services for the Department for the years in question is shown in the table.

  £

  1998–99

  115,298

  1999–2000

  115,309

  2000–01

  172,025

  2001–021

  140,540

  1 Spend to date

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) her Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34398]

  Dr. Howells
  This information cannot be provided save at disproportionate cost. My Department spent £500 on mobile telephone equipment in 2000–01 and £28,000 on mobile calls and line rental in the same period. Expenditure in previous years was at the same level.

  Mobile Libraries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to increase the number of mobile libraries. [34097]

  ALL RABs

  EEA

  EMA

  LA

  NA

  NWA

  1995–96 Direct arts spend

  4,406,276

  4,116,211

  12,474,394

  6,496,922

  7,971,107

  Mid-95 Population

  5,257,300

  4,036,100

  7,007,100

  3,095,200

  6,497,600

  1995–96 Spend per head (£)

  0.84

  1.02

  1.78

  2.10

  1.23

  1996–97 Direct arts spend

  4,499,474

  4,131,044

  13,075,294

  7,113,607

  8,321,574

  Mid-96 Population

  5,292,800

  4,053,100

  7,074,200

  3,091,300

  6,489,000

  1996–97 Spend per head (£)

  0.85

  1.02

  1.85

  2.30

  1.28

  1997–98 Direct arts spend

  4,615,052

  4,145,321

  12,724,078

  6,700,651

  9,751,399

  Mid-97 Population

  5,334,500

  4,068,200

  7,122,100

  3,086,800

  6,481,400

  1997–98 Spend per head (£)

  0.87

  1.02

  1.79

  2.17

  1.50

  1998–99 Direct arts spend

  4,282,894

  4,242,899

  12,843,375

  7,113,607

  8,530,042

  Mid-98 Population

  5,377,000

  4,080,700

  7,187,400

  3,082,600

  6,486,500

  1998–99 Spend per head (£)

  0.80

  1.04

  1.79

  2.31

  1.32

  1999–2000 Direct arts spend

  4,666,124

  5,331,877

  13,686,076

  8,100,981

  9,860,501

  Mid-99 Population

  5,418,900

  4,101,800

  7,284,900

  3,073,300

  6,478,100

  1999–2000 Spend per head (£)

  0.86

  1.30

  1.88

  2.64

  1.52

  2000–01 Direct arts spend

  5,349,901

  7,399,162

  25,996,282

  11,557,019

  18,500,627

  Mid-2000 Population

  5,459,700

  4,118,000

  7,375,100

  3,068,200

  6,493,200

  2000–01 Spend per head (£)

  0.98

  1.80

  3.52

  3.77

  2.85

  2001–02 Direct arts spend

  8,397,333

  8,731,487

  30,140,051

  11,947,163

  17,711,128

  Mid-2000 Population

  5,459,700

  4,118,000

  7,375,100

  3,068,200

  6,493,200

  2001–02 Spend per head (£)

  1.54

  2.12

  4.09

  3.89

  2.73

  184W
  Dr. Howells
  Mobile library provision, as with branch libraries, is a matter for library authorities in line with their duty to provide comprehensive and efficient services within the terms of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  Child Protection (Sport)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial assistance is provided to national governing bodies of sport to draw up and implement child protection policies; and what plans she has to provide further assistance. [34518]

  Dr. Howells
  The Child Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) was established in 2000 and is a three-year joint venture between Sport England (funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport) and the NSPCC. Each are contributing £300,000 towards the unit, which provides a wide range of services to governing bodies including training, consultancy, information and guidance, and case-specific support. In addition, Sports coach UK makes a significant contribution to governing bodies in the child protection area through coaching and its education programme, and Sport England have identified two staff to work closely with the CPSU on child protection work. It is worth noting too that the Criminal Records Bureau, which was set up partly in response to the Protection of Children Act 1999 in England and Wales, will help governing bodies with their child protection policies.

  Regional Arts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the spending by regional arts boards was, per capita of population served, in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [35158]

  Dr. Howells
  The table collated by the Arts Council of England provides the figures requested by the hon. Member.
  185W

  All RABs

  SA

  SEA

  SWA

  WMA

  YA

  1995–96 Direct arts spend

  3,434,829

  2,527,027

  3,999,425

  5,498,493

  6,600,651

  Mid-95 Population

  4,722,800

  4,057,800

  3,893,600

  5,306,500

  5,029,400

  1995–96 Spend per head (£)

  0.73

  0.62

  1.03

  1.04

  1.31

  1996–97 Direct arts spend

  3,409,478

  2,548,760

  3,918,246

  5,305,054

  6,543,122

  Mid-96 Population

  4,755,000

  4,076,800

  3,904,700

  5,316,600

  5,035,400

  1996–97 Spend per head (£)

  0.72

  0.63

  1.00

  1.00

  1.30

  1997–98 Direct arts spend

  3,351,454

  2,599,726

  4,161,363

  5,599,932

  6,541,524

  Mid-97 Population

  4,793,900

  4,110,600

  3,930,400

  5,320,800

  5,037,000

  1997–98 Spend per head (£)

  0.70

  0.63

  1.06

  1.05

  1.30

  1998–99 Direct arts spend

  3,865,165

  2,628,456

  4,018,475

  5,723,581

  6,706,437

  Mid-98 Population

  4,822,800

  4,134,100

  3,948,300

  5,332,200

  5,042,900

  1998–99 Spend per head (£)

  0.80

  0.64

  1.02

  1.07

  1.33

  1999–2000 Direct arts spend

  4,372,224

  2,923,597

  4,339,348

  6,664,429

  7,349,451

  Mid-99 Population

  4,855,200

  4,180,100

  3,977,500

  5,335,600

  5,047,000

  1999–2000 Spend per head (£)

  0.90

  0.70

  1.09

  1.25

  1.46

  2000–01 Direct arts spend

  8,811,035

  4,869,210

  7,105,493

  11,589,981

  10,546,268

  Mid-2000 Population

  4,876,500

  4,201,000

  4,012,400

  5,334,800

  5,057,700

  2000–01 Spend per head (£)

  1.81

  1.16

  1.77

  2.17

  2.09

  2001–02 Direct arts spend

  10,374,000

  5,737,846

  8,559,355

  12,844,798

  11,762,000

  Mid-2000 Population

  4,876,500

  4,201,000

  4,012,400

  5,334,800

  5,057,700

  2001–02 Spend per head (£)

  2.13

  1.37

  2.13

  2.41

  2.33

  Notes:

  (1) RAB arts spend figures are taken from RAB audited accounts, with the exception of 2001–02 figures which are taken from RAB business plans for that year.

  (2) Population figures are calculated from figures provided by National Statistics. Mid-2000 figures are the latest available.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the funding of regional arts and cultural services. [35157]

  Dr. Howells
  The Arts Council of England carries out funding of regional arts organisations at arm's-length from the Government through the regional arts boards.

  Regional arts boards are currently independent charitable organisations, and grants to them from the Arts Council are subject to conditions set by the council. The council made operating grants of £97.6 million to the regional arts boards during the financial year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the savings which would be achieved under the revised proposals from the Arts Council of England regarding funding of arts in the regions. [35159]

  Dr. Howells
  The Arts Council of England has set a target of £8 million to £10 million in savings from administration to put back into the arts. We have made it clear to the Arts Council of England that this target must be met. It is preparing a timetable for the restructuring which will generate those savings once the transfer to a single organisation has been completed.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost to her Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35023]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost of external consultants for the Department for the years in question is shown in the table.
  186W

  £

  1998–99

  379,156

  1999–2000

  711,394

  2000–01

  320,795

  2001–02 spend to date

  421,609

  Libraries
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the frequency of visits by members to libraries per annum in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [35248]

  Dr. Howells
  There has been no such formal assessment. However, with effect from 2001–02, library authorities will report, in their annual library plan, on their current position against the public library standards, which includes a target for visitor numbers. This will allow all library authorities to be assessed against the best performing ones.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list by local authority(a) the number of members of library services and (b) the proportion of the authority's population who are members of its libraries; and if she will make a statement. [35247]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not collected centrally. In 1999–2000, there were nearly 13.8 million active borrowers in England, i.e. 27.7 per cent. of the population. An active borrower is a person who has borrowed at least one item from the library during the year.

  City of London Corporation (Events)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the functions, engagements and events which Ministers, her officials and
  187W
  advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35693]

  Dr. Howells
  The information my hon. Friend has requested is not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the names of staff who have been seconded to her Department from the private sector since May 1997, indicating(a) the names of the organisation from which each has come, (b) their responsibilities and Civil Service grades within her Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35841]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has had no members of staff seconded from the private sector since May 1997.

  Commonwealth Games
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if additional public funding is being sought for the Commonwealth games in Manchester; and if she will make a statement. [35740]

  Mr. Caborn
  On 2 July 2001 I announced an additional £80 million in funding for the games together with a contingency fund of £25 million, made up from contributions from Government, Sport England and Manchester city council. This additional funding was based on a thorough and realistic appraisal of the games equal costs undertaken by Patrick Carter.

  Since then the games has remained firmly on track and within budget. And I can confirm that we have not received any requests for additional public funding over and above that announced last year although Government and the other funders have approved an £8.4 million call on the contingency following the collapse of Atlantic Telecom, the games principal sponsor and telecoms infrastructure provider at the end of last year.

  "Hidden Britain"
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the exclusion of the Northern Highlands, the Western Isles and the Northern Isles from the British Tourist Authority "Hidden Britain"; and if she will make a statement. [R] [35846]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority's (BTA) "Hidden Britain" campaign was designed to promote areas not normally explored on traditional tourist trails. It is not always possible to feature every part of Britain, but the BTA aims to ensure that each campaign is broadly representative. The BTA worked closely with the three national tourist boards, including Visit Scotland, in preparing the "Hidden Britain" initiative.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30094]

  Mr. Leslie
  Estimated expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals since 1997 is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Visual and Aural Impairment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to promote the use of RNID type talk within Government Departments. [31187]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Central Office for Information has published guidance for Government Departments on providing information in accessible formats for disabled people, including the use of text phone services. There are three text phone users in the Cabinet Office and all staff have also received advice on contacting them.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Government Departments employ a trained lip speaker. [31188]

  Mr. Leslie
  Departments are responsible for their own arrangements: while some Departments may employ their own trained lip speakers, others may bring in lip speakers for specific events. Numbers are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Government publications were published in(a) Braille and (b) large print in 2001. [31189]

  Mr. Leslie
  Individual Departments are responsible for their own publications. Information on numbers published is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. Government Departments are always willing to consider requests for providing information in accessible formats. For example, the Office of the e-Envoy consulted the Informability Unit at COI when planning the publication "Your guide to getting on". Copies have been produced in audio, large print and braille formats. By February 2002, 16 Braille, 75 large print and 525 audio copies had been supplied since the start of the public awareness campaign in November 2001.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many sign language specialists are employed by Government Departments for public and media relations. [31186]

  Mr. Leslie
  Departments are responsible for their own arrangements: while some Departments may employ their own sign language specialists, others may bring in sign language specialists for specific events. Numbers are not
  189W
  held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. As an example, in November the Cabinet Office ran the Civil Service training exercise "Dunchester's Millions" for a group of disabled undergraduates, which introduces potential candidates to the work of a Civil Service Fast Streamer. Three sign language interpreters were employed at this event to give profoundly deaf students an opportunity to participate fully in the activities.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Government Departments provide(a) Braille facilities, (b) text phone facilities and (c) lip speaking training for employees. [31185]

  Mr. Leslie
  All Government Departments provide reasonable adjustments for disabled staff depending on an individual's particular needs. This includes the provision of Braille facilities, text phone services and lip speaking training where appropriate. For example, the Cabinet Office has three text phone users. The Cabinet Office Disability Staff Network (DisCO) is also running a deaf awareness workshop, which raises awareness among employees of the causes of deafness. It also offers background to sign language, deaf culture and lip reading skills.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is possible to receive an audio version of Government publications. [31312]

  Mr. Leslie
  Yes. Many Government publications are published in audio versions as a matter of course. Departments are always willing to consider requests to provide other publications in accessible formats. For example, the Office of the e-Envoy consulted the Informability Unit at COI when planning the publication "Your guide to getting on". Copies have been produced in audio, large print and braille formats. By February 2002, 16 braille, 75 large print and 525 audio copies had been supplied since the start of the public awareness campaign in November 2001.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  John Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future work programme of the social exclusion unit. [33734]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Tackling social exclusion is a priority for this Government. We have put in place a twin track strategy to tackle low incomes and improve public services. The social exclusion unit was set up in 1997 to co-ordinate policy-making on specific crosscutting projects focusing 190W
  on some of the most intractable social problems. The unit has completed five major projects on tackling rough sleeping, teenage pregnancy, truancy and school exclusions, neighbourhood renewal and 16 to 18-year-olds not in education. These have resulted in a total of 27 reports, of which six set out a full policy response from Government.

  Over the next 12 months the social exclusion unit is planning to complete four projects on areas of cross cutting work. These areas are: reducing the rates of re-offending among ex-prisoners; developing a more effective system to prevent young people from running away and to help those that do; improving the educational achievement of children in care; and removing the transport barriers that prevent people accessing work and critical services.

  The Prime Minister and I will take a view on any new project as the work programme develops.

  The unit will also be working closely with the implementation units in other Government Departments to ensure that there is effective implementation of previous work carried out by the unit.

  To support this work the social exclusion unit will communicate and consult with members of the public, the voluntary and the business sector, local government and key professionals regarding the Government's policies on social exclusion, and ensure that they receive accurate, up-to-date information about the work of the unit.

  Regional Government White Paper
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the White Paper on Regional Government will be published. [35308]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W.

  Ministerial Meetings (Lobbyists)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings(a) he and (b) his senior departmental officials have had with Enron and its subsidiaries in the last two years. [32430]

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what occasions he and his Department have held meetings since May 1997 with representatives from(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Exxon-Mobil, (d) Enron, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf; if he will state the purpose of each meeting; and if he will provide details of the outcomes and agreements reached as a result of each meeting. [33218]

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings have taken place between Ministers in his Department and employees of Citigate since 7 June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [32813]
  191W
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  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, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Solicitor-General in how many cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service it decided not to prosecute in each of the last three years. [34419]

  The Solicitor-General
  The figures show the number of defendants whose case was handled by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last three years, and the outcome of proceedings.

  The number and proportion of defendants whose case was discontinued in a magistrates' court was as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  1999

  164,682

  12.1

  2000

  166,001

  12.8

  2001

  172,398

  13.1

  The number and proportion of defendants whose case was dropped in the Crown Court before a jury was sworn was as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  1999

  9,331

  10.7

  2000

  10,070

  11.9

  2001

  11,292

  13.7

  Numbers of three and four-year-olds taking up free early education places, England, Government office regions and LEA areas 1997–2001 Position in January each year (spring term)

  1997

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools 1,2

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  4-year-olds 4,5

  Total

  England

  214,173

  0

  576,176

  790,349

  North-east

  23,707

  0

  31,811

  55,518

  Darlington

  915

  0

  1,290

  2,205

  Durham

  4,217

  0

  5,868

  10,084

  Gateshead

  1,259

  0

  2,241

  3,500

  Hartlepool

  1,143

  0

  1,215

  2,358

  Middlesbrough

  1,919

  0

  2,004

  3,923

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,878

  0

  3,087

  4,965

  North Tyneside

  1,837

  0

  2,441

  4,278

  Northumberland

  2,255

  0

  3,638

  5,893

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,988

  0

  1,889

  3,877

  South Tyneside

  1,525

  0

  1,923

  3,448

  Stockton on Tees

  2,351

  0

  2,515

  4,866

  Sunderland

  2,420

  0

  3,701

  6,121

  North-west

  42,204

  0

  83,348

  125,552

  Blackburn with Darwen

  709

  0

  1,912

  2,621

  Blackpool

  547

  0

  1,593

  2,140

  192W
  The above figures represent cases in which the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with a prosecution on consideration of the evidence and the public interest.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Nursery Places
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) actual and (b) percentage change in the number of nursery places provided by the (i) statutory and voluntary sectors and (ii) private sector in each education authority in England and Wales between 1996–97 and 2001–02; what percentage of three year olds had a nursery place in 1996–97; how many had a nursery place in 2000–01; and how many she expects to have a nursery place in 2001–02 in each education authority in England. [32406]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following table contains the available information on numbers of free early years education places taken up by three and four-year-olds. It has been derived from the table published alongside Statistical Bulletin 11/2001 "Provision For Children Under Five Years Of Age in England—January 2001" on my Department's statistical website www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics/. My Department is planning to publish information for January 2002 in May.

  My Department estimates that there are free early years education places available for all eligible four-year-olds in England. Since September 1999, we have invested substantially in new free early years education places for three-year-olds. The table shows three-year-olds took up 335,000 free early years education places in January 2001, up from 214,000 in January 1997. We are committed to providing all three-year-olds, whose parents want one, with free early years education places by September 2004. Information for Wales is a matter for the Education Department of the National Assembly for Wales.
  193W

  Numbers of three and four-year-olds taking up free early education places, England, Government office regions and LEA areas 1997–2001 Position in January each year (spring term)

  1997

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools1,2

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  4-year-olds4,5

  Total

  Bolton

  2,295

  0

  3,341

  5,636

  Bury

  1,079

  0

  2,281

  3,360

  Cheshire

  2,636

  0

  7,555

  10,192

  Cumbria

  2,597

  0

  5,587

  8,184

  Halton

  558

  0

  1,570

  2,128

  Knowsley

  2,044

  0

  2,263

  4,307

  Lancashire

  4,392

  0

  12,427

  16,819

  Liverpool

  4,187

  0

  5,595

  9,782

  Manchester

  3,722

  0

  5,981

  9,703

  Oldham

  1,540

  0

  3,124

  4,664

  Rochdale

  1,407

  0

  2,790

  4,197

  Salford

  2,231

  0

  3,263

  5,494

  Sefton

  2,051

  0

  3,226

  5,277

  St. Helens

  1,108

  0

  2,200

  3,308

  Stockport

  1,634

  0

  3,274

  4,908

  Tameside

  1,705

  0

  2,881

  4,586

  Trafford

  1,856

  0

  2,815

  4,671

  Warrington

  827

  0

  2,327

  3,154

  Wigan

  1,434

  0

  3,513

  4,947

  Wirral

  1,645

  0

  3,830

  5,475

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  31,844

  0

  61,664

  93,508

  Barnsley

  1,264

  0

  2,868

  4,132

  Bradford

  4,376

  0

  6,637

  11,013

  Calderdale

  1,309

  0

  2,626

  3,935

  Doncaster

  2,364

  0

  3,800

  6,164

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,053

  0

  3,214

  4,267

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  2,240

  0

  3,517

  5,757

  Kirklees

  2,974

  0

  4,911

  7,885

  Leeds

  6,065

  0

  8,755

  14,820

  North East Lincolnshire

  922

  0

  2,079

  3,001

  North Lincolnshire

  521

  0

  1,842

  2,363

  North Yorkshire

  1,642

  0

  5,996

  7,638

  Rotherham

  1,304

  0

  3,397

  4,701

  Sheffield

  2,594

  0

  5,952

  8,546

  Wakefield

  2,540

  0

  4,217

  6,757

  York

  676

  0

  1,853

  2,529

  East Midlands

  17,140

  0

  47,870

  65,010

  Derby

  1,331

  0

  3,056

  3,056

  Derbyshire

  3,612

  0

  8,295

  13,238

  Leicester

  924

  0

  3,909

  3,909

  Leicestershire

  1,474

  0

  5,921

  8,400

  Lincolnshire

  1,686

  0

  6,576

  8,262

  Northamptonshire

  2,277

  0

  7,464

  9,741

  Nottingham

  1,816

  0

  3,871

  5,688

  Nottinghamshire

  3,939

  0

  8,396

  12,335

  Rutland

  81

  0

  382

  382

  West Midlands

  29,098

  0

  64,117

  93,215

  Birmingham

  7,427

  0

  12,474

  19,901

  Coventry

  1,674

  0

  3,651

  5,325

  Dudley

  2,267

  0

  3,696

  5,963

  Herefordshire

  182

  0

  1,869

  2,051

  Sandwell

  3,035

  0

  3,990

  7,025

  Shropshire

  471

  0

  2,944

  3,415

  Solihull

  1,250

  0

  2,575

  3,825

  Staffordshire

  3,471

  0

  9,563

  14,227

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,193

  0

  3,085

  3,085

  Telford and Wrekin

  319

  0

  1,921

  2,240

  Walsall

  3,079

  0

  3,585

  6,664

  Warwickshire

  1,357

  0

  5,551

  6,908

  Wolverhampton

  2,793

  0

  3,277

  6,070

  Worcestershire

  580

  0

  5,937

  6,517

  194W 195W

  Numbers of three and four-year-olds taking up free early education places, England, Government office regions and LEA areas 1997–2001 Position in January each year (spring term)

  1997

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools 1,2

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  4-year-olds 4,5

  Total

  East of England

  11,658

  0

  62,005

  73,663

  Bedfordshire

  1,266

  0

  4,704

  6,739

  Cambridgeshire

  1,093

  0

  5,769

  6,861

  Essex

  1,559

  0

  14,007

  15,566

  Hertfordshire

  4,095

  0

  13,796

  17,891

  Luton

  769

  0

  2,674

  2,674

  Norfolk

  1,493

  0

  8,184

  9,677

  Peterborough

  373

  0

  1,922

  2,295

  Southend-on-Sea

  213

  0

  1,918

  2,131

  Suffolk

  605

  0

  7,351

  7,956

  Thurrock

  192

  0

  1,680

  1,872

  London

  40,536

  0

  85,128

  125,664

  Inner London

  18,959

  0

  31,794

  50,753

  Camden

  802

  0

  1,808

  2,610

  City of London

  11

  0

  30

  41

  Hackney

  1,474

  0

  2,625

  4,099

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,053

  0

  1,336

  2,389

  Haringey

  2,004

  0

  2,913

  4,917

  Islington

  1,266

  0

  2,184

  3,450

  Kensington and Chelsea

  542

  0

  1,213

  1,755

  Lambeth

  1,462

  0

  2,706

  4,168

  Lewisham

  1,412

  0

  2,917

  4,329

  Newham

  2,030

  0

  3,759

  5,789

  Southwark

  2,222

  0

  3,067

  5,289

  Tower Hamlets

  2,340

  0

  2,722

  5,062

  Wandsworth

  1,614

  0

  3,035

  4,649

  Westminster

  727

  0

  1,478

  2,205

  Outer London

  21,577

  0

  53,334

  74,911

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,332

  0

  2,436

  3,768

  Barnet

  2,021

  0

  3,534

  5,555

  Bexley

  1,069

  0

  2,657

  3,726

  Brent

  1,712

  0

  3,047

  4,759

  Bromley

  107

  0

  3,427

  3,534

  Croydon

  1,537

  0

  3,951

  5,488

  Ealing

  2,625

  0

  3,851

  6,476

  Enfield

  1,112

  0

  3,179

  4,291

  Greenwich

  1,981

  0

  2,994

  4,975

  Harrow

  451

  0

  2,308

  2,759

  Havering

  449

  0

  2,414

  2,863

  Hillingdon

  560

  0

  3,268

  3,828

  Hounslow

  1,563

  0

  2,560

  4,123

  Kingston upon Thames

  888

  0

  1,564

  2,452

  Merton

  1,644

  0

  2,225

  3,869

  Redbridge

  687

  0

  2,943

  3,630

  Richmond upon Thames

  570

  0

  1,843

  2,413

  Sutton

  325

  0

  2,140

  2,465

  Waltham Forest

  944

  0

  2,993

  3,937

  South-east

  10,602

  0

  88,329

  98,931

  Bracknell Forest

  218

  0

  1,536

  1,754

  Brighton and Hove

  450

  0

  2,441

  2,441

  Buckinghamshire

  597

  0

  5,679

  6,566

  East Sussex

  933

  0

  4,799

  6,182

  Hampshire

  1,092

  0

  13,109

  14,568

  Isle of Wight

  115

  0

  1,302

  1,417

  Kent

  1,532

  0

  14,635

  16,167

  Medway

  315

  0

  2,962

  3,277

  Milton Keynes

  290

  0

  2,743

  2,743

  Oxfordshire

  770

  0

  6,875

  7,645

  Portsmouth

  171

  0

  2,039

  2,039

  Reading

  255

  0

  1,796

  2,051

  Slough

  231

  0

  1,559

  1,790

  Southampton

  196

  0

  2,148

  2,148

  196W 197W

  Numbers of three and four-year-olds taking up free early education places, England, Government office regions and LEA areas 1997–2001 Position in January each year (spring term)

  1997

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools 1,2

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  4-year-olds4,5

  Total

  Surrey

  2,080

  0

  12,051

  14,131

  West Berkshire

  236

  0

  1,761

  1,996

  West Sussex

  648

  0

  7,597

  8,245

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  225

  0

  1,565

  1,790

  Wokingham

  248

  0

  1,732

  1,980

  South-west

  7,384

  0

  51,904

  59,288

  Bath and North East Somerset

  308

  0

  1,685

  1,993

  Bournemouth

  127

  0

  1,533

  1,533

  Bristol, City of

  2,755

  0

  4,688

  7,443

  Cornwall6

  988

  0

  5,136

  6,124

  Devon

  866

  0

  6,866

  7,732

  Dorset

  300

  0

  3,621

  4,175

  Gloucestershire

  58

  0

  6,171

  6,229

  North Somerset

  159

  0

  1,810

  1,969

  Plymouth

  361

  0

  2,885

  3,246

  Poole

  127

  0

  1,348

  1,348

  Somerset

  472

  0

  5,204

  5,676

  South Gloucestershire

  403

  0

  2,745

  3,148

  Swindon

  94

  0

  2,142

  2,142

  Torbay

  151

  0

  1,213

  1,364

  Wiltshire

  215

  0

  4,858

  5,167

  2001

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools 1

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  4-year-olds4

  Total

  England

  226,634

  108,815

  589,293

  924,742

  North-east

  21,871

  3,288

  29,436

  54,595

  Darlington

  919

  49

  1,299

  2,268

  Durham

  3,850

  612

  5,451

  9,913

  Gateshead

  1,342

  593

  2,275

  4,209

  Hartlepool

  961

  34

  1,130

  2,125

  Middlesbrough

  1,849

  115

  1,537

  3,502

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,773

  857

  2,928

  5,558

  North Tyneside

  1,767

  232

  2,291

  4,290

  Northumberland

  2,139

  136

  3,421

  5,696

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,601

  14

  1,707

  3,322

  South Tyneside

  1,450

  143

  1,719

  3,312

  Stockton on Tees

  1,813

  100

  2,329

  4,242

  Sunderland

  2,407

  404

  3,347

  6,158

  North-west

  39,566

  20,727

  84,733

  145,025

  Blackburn with Darwen

  966

  679

  2,030

  3,676

  Blackpool

  314

  1,075

  1,562

  2,951

  Bolton

  2,088

  926

  3,659

  6,673

  Bury

  1,046

  91

  2,217

  3,354

  Cheshire

  2,172

  783

  7,800

  10,755

  Cumbria

  2,410

  1,138

  5,586

  9,133

  Halton

  542

  577

  1,414

  2,533

  Knowsley

  1,847

  133

  2,184

  4,164

  Lancashire

  4,199

  5,155

  15,681

  25,036

  Liverpool

  3,648

  1,310

  4,479

  9,436

  Manchester

  3,890

  713

  5,375

  9,978

  Oldham

  1,507

  1,048

  3,051

  5,606

  Rochdale

  1,287

  966

  2,733

  4,985

  Salford

  1,836

  247

  2,712

  4,795

  Sefton

  2,103

  778

  3,155

  6,036

  St. Helens

  1,084

  495

  2,079

  3,659

  Stockport

  1,703

  87

  3,323

  5,114

  198W 199W

  2001

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools 1

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  4-year-olds4

  Total

  Tameside

  1,580

  581

  2,764

  4,925

  Trafford

  1,497

  196

  2,551

  4,244

  Warrington

  889

  1,099

  2,360

  4,348

  Wigan

  1,358

  1,194

  3,634

  6,186

  Wirral

  1,600

  1,455

  4,383

  7,438

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  31,804

  15,223

  58,804

  105,831

  Barnsley

  1,356

  529

  2,098

  3,983

  Bradford

  4,520

  1,196

  5,882

  11,598

  Calderdale

  1,184

  666

  2,364

  4,215

  Doncaster

  2,249

  161

  3,740

  6,150

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,024

  138

  3,388

  4,550

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  2,036

  517

  3,170

  5,724

  Kirklees

  2,489

  1,488

  5,028

  9,005

  Leeds

  5,642

  1,786

  8,436

  15,864

  North East Lincolnshire

  933

  554

  1,902

  3,388

  North Lincolnshire

  637

  536

  1,771

  2,944

  North Yorkshire

  1,705

  3,218

  6,287

  11,210

  Rotherham

  1,364

  876

  3,093

  5,333

  Sheffield

  3,372

  2,030

  5,825

  11,227

  Wakefield

  2,592

  611

  3,980

  7,183

  York

  701

  916

  1,840

  3,457

  East Midlands

  19,103

  8,321

  48,829

  76,253

  Derby

  1,845

  859

  2,808

  5,512

  Derbyshire

  4,016

  3,099

  8,384

  15,499

  Leicester

  2,146

  1,112

  3,849

  7,107

  Leicestershire

  129

  639

  6,641

  7,408

  Lincolnshire

  1,749

  41

  7,022

  8,812

  Northamptonshire

  2,294

  835

  7,876

  11,005

  Nottingham

  2,509

  700

  3,557

  6,765

  Nottinghamshire

  4,328

  1,008

  8,318

  13,653

  Rutland

  87

  30

  374

  491

  West Midlands

  30,441

  9,450

  65,826

  105,717

  Birmingham

  7,200

  3,844

  14,033

  25,076

  Coventry

  1,984

  1,031

  3,753

  6,767

  Dudley

  2,336

  738

  3,743

  6,816

  Herefordshire

  336

  115

  2,249

  2,701

  Sandwell

  3,059

  100

  3,509

  6,668

  Shropshire

  499

  309

  3,144

  3,952

  Solihull

  1,499

  59

  2,711

  4,270

  Staffordshire

  2,554

  443

  9,201

  12,198

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,842

  367

  2,836

  5,044

  Telford and Wrekin

  651

  596

  2,115

  3,363

  Walsall

  2,838

  151

  3,427

  6,416

  Warwickshire

  1,473

  813

  5,964

  8,250

  Wolverhampton

  2,584

  134

  3,010

  5,728

  Worcestershire

  1,586

  751

  6,132

  8,468

  East of England

  15,740

  4,352

  64,060

  84,151

  Bedfordshire

  1,202

  218

  4,888

  6,308

  Cambridgeshire

  1,154

  867

  5,897

  7,918

  Essex

  1,992

  221

  15,051

  17,264

  Hertfordshire

  6,406

  257

  13,495

  20,159

  Luton

  975

  996

  2,643

  4,614

  Norfolk

  1,932

  126

  8,404

  10,462

  Peterborough

  288

  593

  2,132

  3,013

  Southend-on-Sea

  446

  440

  2,087

  2,973

  Suffolk

  857

  477

  7,617

  8,950

  Thurrock

  488

  157

  1,845

  2,490

  London

  46,679

  20,825

  87,835

  155,339

  Inner London

  21,508

  10,078

  34,058

  65,644

  Camden

  915

  718

  2,075

  3,707

  City of London

  12

  1

  35

  48

  Hackney

  1,520

  968

  2,714

  5,202

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,025

  586

  1,564

  3,174

  200W 201W

  2001

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools 1

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers 3

  4-year-olds 4

  Total

  Haringey

  1,932

  486

  3,391

  5,809

  Islington

  1,252

  812

  2,089

  4,153

  Kensington and Chelsea

  612

  277

  1,031

  1,920

  Lambeth

  1,955

  1,163

  3,062

  6,180

  Lewisham

  1,892

  968

  3,018

  5,878

  Newham

  3,306

  551

  3,947

  7,804

  Southwark

  2,242

  1,150

  3,397

  6,789

  Tower Hamlets

  2,358

  281

  2,809

  5,448

  Wandsworth

  1,629

  1,349

  3,210

  6,187

  Westminster

  858

  768

  1,717

  3,343

  Outer London

  25,171

  10,747

  53,778

  89,695

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,418

  326

  2,338

  4,082

  Barnet

  1,995

  389

  3,665

  6,049

  Bexley

  1,314

  911

  2,570

  4,796

  Brent

  1,684

  875

  2,985

  5,544

  Bromley

  247

  428

  3,657

  4,332

  Croydon

  1,894

  623

  4,123

  6,640

  Ealing

  2,604

  527

  3,725

  6,856

  Enfield

  1,236

  1,034

  3,483

  5,753

  Greenwich

  1,800

  765

  2,846

  5,411

  Harrow

  615

  350

  2,379

  3,344

  Havering

  603

  1,210

  2,317

  4,130

  Hillingdon

  1,813

  119

  3,336

  5,268

  Hounslow

  1,564

  550

  2,491

  4,605

  Kingston upon Thames

  911

  172

  1,678

  2,760

  Merton

  1,707

  117

  2,099

  3,923

  Redbridge

  1,587

  852

  3,352

  5,790

  Richmond upon Thames

  546

  40

  1,974

  2,560

  Sutton

  266

  360

  2,037

  2,663

  Waltham Forest

  1,367

  1,098

  2,723

  5,188

  South-east

  12,705

  14,255

  93,691

  120,651

  Bracknell Forest

  147

  735

  1,329

  2,212

  Brighton and Hove

  732

  1,032

  2,560

  4,325

  Buckinghamshire

  790

  404

  6,075

  7,269

  East Sussex

  588

  1,113

  4,953

  6,654

  Hampshire

  589

  1,748

  14,560

  16,897

  Isle of Wight

  131

  471

  1,433

  2,035

  Kent

  1,494

  818

  15,773

  18,085

  Medway

  412

  2,119

  3,231

  5,762

  Milton Keynes

  379

  197

  2,774

  3,349

  Oxfordshire

  1,024

  213

  6,885

  8,122

  Portsmouth

  441

  880

  2,501

  3,822

  Reading

  716

  202

  1,721

  2,639

  Slough

  976

  32

  1,655

  2,664

  Southampton

  334

  1,346

  2,310

  3,990

  Surrey

  2,426

  2,145

  12,755

  17,326

  West Berkshire

  273

  99

  1,646

  2,018

  West Sussex

  816

  441

  8,222

  9,479

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  306

  226

  1,521

  2,052

  Wokingham

  131

  32

  1,787

  1,950

  South-west

  8,725

  12,375

  56,080

  77,180

  Bath and North East Somerset

  288

  195

  1,827

  2,310

  Bournemouth

  282

  914

  1,568

  2,764

  Bristol, City of

  2,653

  1,169

  4,453

  8,274

  Cornwall6

  987

  2,089

  5,208

  8,284

  Devon

  1,200

  630

  7,330

  9,159

  Dorset

  215

  288

  3,987

  4,490

  Gloucestershire

  97

  3,385

  8,472

  11,954

  North Somerset

  200

  98

  2,000

  2,297

  Plymouth

  744

  1,508

  2,540

  4,792

  Poole

  92

  742

  1,374

  2,208

  Somerset

  503

  217

  5,404

  6,124

  South Gloucestershire

  341

  145

  3,114

  3,600

  Swindon

  412

  172

  2,346

  2,930

  Torbay

  391

  505

  1,349

  2,245

  Wiltshire

  320

  319

  5,108

  5,747

  202W 203W

  Actual change in numbers 1997 to 20017

  Percentage change in numbers 1997 to 20018

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  England

  121,276

  13,118

  57

  2

  North-east

  1,452

  -2,375

  6

  -7

  Darlington

  53

  10

  6

  1

  Durham

  245

  -417

  6

  -7

  Gateshead

  676

  34

  54

  1

  Hartlepool

  -148

  -85

  -13

  -7

  Middlesbrough

  45

  -467

  2

  -23

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  752

  -159

  40

  -5

  North Tyneside

  162

  -150

  9

  -6

  Northumberland

  20

  -216

  1

  -6

  Redcar & Cleveland

  -373

  -182

  -19

  -10

  South Tyneside

  68

  -204

  4

  -11

  Stockton on Tees

  -438

  -185

  -19

  -7

  Sunderland

  391

  -354

  16

  -10

  0

  North-west

  18,089

  1,385

  43

  2

  Blackburn with Darwen

  936

  118

  132

  6

  Blackpool

  842

  -32

  154

  -2

  Bolton

  719

  319

  31

  10

  Bury

  58

  -63

  5

  -3

  Cheshire

  319

  245

  12

  3

  Cumbria

  951

  -1

  37

  -0

  Halton

  561

  -156

  101

  -10

  Knowsley

  -64

  -79

  -3

  -3

  Lancashire

  4,963

  3,254

  113

  26

  Liverpool

  771

  -1,116

  18

  -20

  Manchester

  881

  -605

  24

  -10

  Oldham

  1,015

  -73

  66

  -2

  Rochdale

  846

  -58

  60

  -2

  Salford

  -148

  -551

  -7

  -17

  Sefton

  830

  -71

  40

  -2

  St. Helens

  471

  -121

  43

  -5

  Stockport

  156

  50

  10

  2

  Tameside

  456

  -117

  27

  -4

  Trafford

  -163

  -264

  -9

  -9

  Warrington

  1,162

  33

  141

  1

  Wigan

  1,118

  120

  78

  3

  Wirral

  1,410

  553

  86

  14

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  15,183

  -2,860

  48

  -5

  Barnsley

  621

  -770

  49

  -27

  Bradford

  1,340

  -755

  31

  -11

  Calderdale

  541

  -262

  41

  -10

  Doncaster

  46

  -60

  2

  -2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  109

  174

  10

  5

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  313

  -346

  14

  -10

  Kirklees

  1,003

  117

  34

  2

  Leeds

  1,362

  -319

  22

  -4

  North East Lincolnshire

  565

  -178

  61

  -9

  North Lincolnshire

  652

  -72

  125

  -4

  North Yorkshire

  3,281

  291

  200

  5

  Rotherham

  936

  -304

  72

  -9

  Sheffield

  2,808

  -127

  108

  -2

  Wakefield

  663

  -236

  26

  -6

  York

  941

  -13

  139

  -1

  East Midlands

  10,284

  960

  60

  2

  Derby

  1,372

  -248

  103

  -8

  Derbyshire

  3,503

  89

  97

  1

  Leicester

  2,334

  -60

  253

  -2

  Leicestershire

  -706

  720

  -48

  12

  Lincolnshire

  104

  447

  6

  7

  Northamptonshire

  852

  413

  37

  6

  Nottingham

  1,392

  -314

  77

  -8

  Nottinghamshire

  1,397

  -78

  35

  -1

  Rutland

  35

  -8

  43

  -2

  West Midlands

  10,793

  1,709

  37

  3

  Birmingham

  3,617

  1,558

  49

  12

  Coventry

  1,341

  102

  80

  3

  Dudley

  807

  46

  36

  1

  204W 205W

  Actual change in numbers 1997 to 20017

  Percentage change in numbers 1997 to 20018

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  Herefordshire

  270

  380

  148

  20

  Sandwell

  124

  -481

  4

  -12

  Shropshire

  337

  201

  71

  7

  Solihull

  308

  137

  25

  5

  Staffordshire

  -474

  -362

  -14

  -4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,016

  -249

  85

  -8

  Telford and Wrekin

  929

  194

  292

  10

  Walsall

  -90

  -158

  -3

  -4

  Warwickshire

  929

  412

  68

  7

  Wolverhampton

  -75

  -267

  -3

  -8

  Worcestershire

  1,757

  194

  303

  3

  East of England

  8,434

  2,055

  72

  3

  Bedfordshire

  155

  183

  12

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  928

  129

  85

  2

  Essex

  654

  1,044

  42

  7

  Hertfordshire

  2,568

  -301

  63

  -2

  Luton

  1,202

  -31

  156

  -1

  Norfolk

  565

  220

  38

  3

  Peterborough

  508

  211

  136

  11

  Southend-on-Sea

  673

  169

  316

  9

  Suffolk

  729

  266

  120

  4

  Thurrock

  453

  165

  236

  10

  London

  26,968

  2,707

  67

  3

  Inner London

  12,627

  2,264

  67

  7

  Camden

  831

  266

  104

  15

  City of London

  2

  5

  18

  15

  Hackney

  1,014

  89

  69

  3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  558

  227

  53

  17

  Haringey

  414

  479

  21

  16

  Islington

  798

  -96

  63

  -4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  347

  -182

  64

  -15

  Lambeth

  1,656

  355

  113

  13

  Lewisham

  1,448

  101

  103

  3

  Newham

  1,827

  188

  90

  5

  Southwark

  1,170

  330

  53

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  299

  87

  13

  3

  Wandsworth

  1,364

  175

  84

  6

  Westminster

  899

  239

  124

  16

  Outer London

  14,341

  443

  66

  1

  Barking and Dagenham

  412

  -97

  31

  -4

  Barnet

  363

  130

  18

  4

  Bexley

  1,156

  -87

  108

  -3

  Brent

  847

  -62

  49

  -2

  Bromley

  568

  231

  531

  7

  Croydon

  980

  172

  64

  4

  Ealing

  506

  -126

  19

  -3

  Enfield

  1,158

  303

  104

  10

  Greenwich

  584

  -149

  30

  -5

  Harrow

  514

  71

  114

  3

  Havering

  1,364

  -97

  304

  -4

  Hillingdon

  1,372

  68

  245

  2

  Hounslow

  551

  -69

  35

  -3

  Kingston upon Thames

  195

  114

  22

  7

  Merton

  180

  -125

  11

  -6

  Redbridge

  1,752

  409

  255

  14

  Richmond upon Thames

  16

  131

  3

  7

  Sutton

  301

  -104

  93

  -5

  Waltham Forest

  1,521

  -271

  161

  -9

  South-east

  16,358

  5,362

  154

  6

  Bracknell Forest

  664

  -207

  304

  -13

  Brighton and Hove

  1,315

  119

  292

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  597

  397

  100

  7

  East Sussex

  768

  154

  82

  3

  Hampshire

  1,245

  1,451

  114

  11

  Isle of Wight

  487

  131

  424

  10

  Kent

  780

  1,138

  51

  8

  Medway

  2,216

  269

  704

  9

  Milton Keynes

  286

  31

  98

  1

  206W 207W

  Actual change in numbers 1997 to 20017

  Percentage change in numbers 1997 to 20018

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  Oxfordshire

  467

  9

  61

  0

  Portsmouth

  1,150

  462

  672

  23

  Reading

  663

  -76

  260

  -4

  Slough

  778

  96

  337

  6

  Southampton

  1,484

  162

  758

  8

  Surrey

  2,491

  704

  120

  6

  West Berkshire

  137

  -115

  58

  -7

  West Sussex

  609

  625

  94

  8

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  306

  -44

  136

  -3

  Wokingham

  -85

  55

  -34

  3

  South-west

  13,716

  4,176

  186

  8

  Bath and North East Somerset

  175

  143

  57

  8

  Bournemouth

  1,069

  35

  845

  2

  Bristol, City of

  1,067

  -236

  39

  -5

  Cornwall6

  2,088

  72

  211

  1

  Devon

  963

  464

  111

  7

  Dorset

  203

  366

  67

  10

  Gloucestershire

  3,424

  2,301

  5,903

  37

  North Somerset

  139

  190

  87

  10

  Plymouth

  1,892

  -345

  524

  -12

  Poole

  707

  26

  556

  2

  Somerset

  248

  200

  53

  4

  South Gloucestershire

  83

  369

  21

  13

  Swindon

  490

  204

  523

  10

  Torbay

  745

  136

  494

  11

  Wiltshire

  424

  251

  197

  5

  1 Headcount of children aged three at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Annual Schools Census.

  2 Figures for LEAs that were re-organised in April 1997 were obtained by apportionment.

  3 Part-time equivalent number of children aged three at 31 December in the previous year from the Nursery Education Grant data collection exercise. Nursery Education Grant for three-year-olds was allocated to the 65 local education authorities in 1999–2000 and all LEAs in 2000–01.

  4 Part-time equivalent number of children aged four at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Nursery Education Grant data collection exercise.

  5 Summer term 1997.

  6 Includes Isles of Scilly

  7 Expressed as the difference between the numbers of children attending a provider in 2001 compared to 1997.

  8 Percentage change in the numbers of children attending a provider in 2001 compared to 1997.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) three and (b) four-year-olds in St. Helens, South there are (i) with a full-time nursery place and (ii) without a full-time nursery place. [33697]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information shows that there were 120 three-year-olds and 1,570 four-year-olds who took up full-time nursery education places in St. Helens local education authority area in January 2000.

  My Department estimates that there are free part-time early education places available for all eligible four-year-olds in England. We are also committed to providing all three-year-olds, whose parents want one, with free part-time early years education places by September 2004.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many of her Department's PH contracts Arthur Andersen has been an adviser; and if she will make a statement. [31719]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire, whether through the Private Finance Initiative or other procurement routes, taking into account the Government's policy of seeking value for money for the taxpayer. As regards PFI contracts, the public sector 208W
  as a whole has signed hundreds of deals covering the delivery of a range of services, including hospitals, police stations, transport and schools. Many hundreds of firms covering a range of activities will be involved in the delivery of contracted services. In my Department Arthur Anderson has not been used as an adviser on any PFI contracts.

  Teachers Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the supplemental submission to the School Teachers' Review Body from the six teaching organisations in England issued in December 2001; and if she will make a statement. [35061]

  Mr. Timms
  It is for the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) to consider evidence submitted to it and their assessment will inform their recommendations to my right hon. Friend. The STRB' s main report for 2002–03 was published in January and my right hon. Friend is now consulting key stakeholders, including teaching unions, on proposed changes to teachers' pay and conditions of service before any changes are implemented. The STRB is currently undertaking a special remit on teacher workload and is expected to report in April.
  209W
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will allow head teachers and teachers a three-month sabbatical once they have completed 10 years continuous service; and if she will make a statement. [35062]

  Mr. Timms
  No. However a sabbatical scheme for experienced teachers with five years or more experience in challenging schools (defined as having 50 per cent. or more free school meals) was introduced in September 2001. Sabbaticals last for a period of up to six weeks, and can be used flexibly. The sabbatical scheme will run for an initial three year period and will then be reviewed.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will establish any new rents-to-mortgages schemes for teachers in the London area. [35063]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans at present to introduce such a scheme. However, we do recognise that the cost of housing in London is one of the drivers behind teachers' decisions about their future. That is why, as part of the Government's £250 million Starter Homes Initiative, more than 1,600 London teachers will receive assistance to purchase homes in areas of high price or demand. We are also working closely with the Department for Transport, London and the Regions, the NHS, Home Office and the Housing Corporation, to develop a long-term strategy that will provide affordable housing for key workers.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further action she is taking to reduce the level of student performance evaluation work required by teachers; and if she will make a statement. [35064]

  Mr. Timms
  Performance evaluation helps to ensure that pupils and students are getting a good education. Coursework assessment is a long standing feature of examinations and can be a valuable way of assessing achievement that cannot readily be demonstrated in an examination. The Government are not planning any changes to coursework limits.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further action she is taking to help schools in London retains teachers. [35065]

  Mr. Timms
  Retaining good teachers within the profession is key to continuing to raise standards in schools. Our research has consistently shown that workload is a significant factor in influencing teachers to leave the profession. That is why we have asked the School Teachers' Review Body to consider the findings of the recent PricewaterhouseCooper's study that we commissioned into reducing teachers' workloads. The STRB will report to us by the end of April this year and we have already announced the piloting of 30 school work force pathfinders to test out innovative solutions to reducing workload and bureaucracy in schools. In addition, we made almost £20 million available in 2001–02 directly to schools in London to fund local recruitment and retention initiatives. In recognition of the problems that London teachers continue to face, we have recently announced a further, increased, figure of more than £22 million for 2002–03. The cost of housing in London is also a key driver behind teachers' decisions about their future. That is why, as part of the 210W
  Government's £250 million Starter Homes Initiative, more than 1,600 London teachers will receive assistance to purchase homes in areas of high price or demand. We have also announced our proposal to accept the STRB's recently announced recommendations, including a further above inflation pay increase of 3.5 per cent. for all teachers and that good, experienced, teachers should in future be able to receive a £2,148 pay increase on crossing the threshold after five years instead of seven. London allowances, other than the inner London Supplement, will also be increased by 3.5 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out our longer term proposals for all teachers and teaching in a pamphlet, "Professionalism and Trust", published in November 2001.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason Surrey has been allocated less money from the Recruitment and Retention Fund than other LEAs in the South East. [35805]

  Mr. Timms
  The criteria used for deciding allocation of funding was made on the basis of regional vacancy rates, using data supplied annually by LEAs on form 618G. These were averaged out over the last three years for which validated data were available—i.e. ending with the data for January 2001—to avoid the allocation being over-influenced by a one-off peak in vacancies in a single year. In order to make any sort of accurate assessment of need we had to work from a reliable and statistically valid baseline. That is what the form 618G provided us with. We used the same criteria for the 2000–01 allocations and we had always indicated that we would seek a consistent approach in both years.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent guidance has been issued to schools in relation to management of performance-related pay for teachers. [35621]

  Mr. Timms
  Performance pay points are awarded at the discretion of governing bodies of individual schools. My Department sent guidance on teachers' pay to schools in England and Wales in September. This included advice on school salary policies and awarding performance pay points.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the levels of student debt on leaving university; and if she will make a statement. [35561]

  Margaret Hodge
  The most recent assessment made in a department survey for 1998–99, was an average of £2,528 anticipated dept. That survey was conducted before the present system of student support was fully implemented. The most recent evidence, from the UNITE/MORI poll conducted in the autumn of 2001, suggests that higher education students currently owe on average £4,203 and expected to owe £8,133 on graduating. This has to be considered in the context of graduates currently earning around 35 per cent. more than the national average and potentially around £400,000 more over their working lives.
  211W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to reduce the burden of debt on students; and if she will make a statement. [35562]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our current review of student finance is considering both the student debt issue, particularly in relation to the lower socio-economic groups, and the relative contributions of students, parents and the Government to student support. We shall make an announcement on the outcome of the review and will consult with all interested parties.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about parental contributions to student fees. [35563]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our review of student finance is considering the relative contributions of students, parents and the Government to student support. We shall make an announcement on the outcome of the review and will consult with all interested parties.

  Lecturers (Pay)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many higher and further education establishments have not implemented the 3.7 per cent. wage rise for lecturers. [34917]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not collect this information centrally. However, we understand from figures produced by the Association of Colleges that 80 per cent. of general further education colleges have implemented an award of 3.7 per cent. or higher, a further 10 per cent. have implemented a partial award and 10 per cent. have yet to make an award.

  Lecturers in higher education institutions are paid according to separate higher education pay scales and have settled for a minimum 4.3 per cent. pay award for 2001–02. We are not aware of any Higher Education Institutions failing to implement the award.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures there are to ensure that the wage increase for university lecturers, agreed in August 2001, is paid by colleges and universities to staff. [34918]

  Margaret Hodge
  The higher education employers and trades unions will monitor the implementation of the pay awards they have agreed. The Government do not play a part.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Council what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33248]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave on 11 February 2002, Official Report, column 1204W.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 897W, on Fair Trade goods, if, during Fair Trade Fortnight, he will review the amount of fairly traded goods used in his Department. [35450]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on 11 February 2002.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to enable an employee of an hon. Member to hand in oral questions to the Table Office. [34626]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Procedure Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into parliamentary questions, and I will ensure this suggestion is drawn to the attention of the Chairman.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Farms
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many farms the Church owns; and how many it owned in 1997. [34465]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners currently own 353 farms of at least 20 hectares, and a large number of smaller holdings.

  On the best information available, the comparable figure for 1997 is 379.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to written answer 23221, of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 495W, for what reason this information is market sensitive; and which share prices of other markets could be affected by the provision of a response to it. [26732]

  Mr. Spellar
  Release of this unaudited information could have an adverse effect on the company's bonds. We are not aware of other share prices of other markets that could be affected.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will provide working capital for the company limited by guarantee prior to the completion of Railtrack administration. [30240]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No working capital will be required.
  213W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) who made the approaches to(a) Mr. Iain McAllister and (b) Mr. Iain Coucher to join the team working on a company limited by guarantee to bid for Railtrack; and what other approaches have been made to potential directors of a company limited by guarantee to bid for Railtrack; [30230]

  (2) who took the decision to recruit (a) Mr. Iain McAllister and (b) Mr. Iain Coucher to the team working on a company limited by guarantee to bid for Railtrack. [30231]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is in the public interest that at least one viable bid is submitted to the administrator for him to judge alongside any other bids that are made. To this end my Department took the initial steps to engage a team to develop a bid based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee.

  My Department announced the appointment of Iain McAllister on 29 November 2001. Subsequently, the Strategic Rail Authority announced on 17 December that it had taken responsibility for the engagement of the CLG team and for meeting its bid costs. The SRA announced the appointment of Iain Coucher on 16 January. Copies of the relevant press notices have been placed in the Library of the House. It is for the bid team to make a proposal to the administrator, including a proposal for the management of the proposed company.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will meet the legal costs of the team working to establish a company limited by guarantee to bid for Railtrack. [30237]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cost of the bid team's legal advisers, will be paid directly by the Strategic Rail Authority from within its budget.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he has received requests from the European Commission for clarification of the application for state aid consent for Railtrack in administration. [30229]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is a continuing dialogue with the European Commission about the application that the United Kingdom has submitted for state aid approval.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002, ref 30241,Official Report, column 320W, how and when these costs will be repaid to the SRA. [33409]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The SRA is itself funding the cost of putting forward a proposal based on the concept of a CLG on the basis that it is in the public interest to ensure that at least one viable bid is put to the administrator, which would enable Railtrack to be taken out of administration as soon as possible, which articulates a particular vision for a not for distributable profit railway network operator and which can be tested against other bids.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether Schroder Salomon Smith Barney is retained by his Department. [33412]
  214W
  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 8 January 2002, Official Report, column 583W.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many shares he held in Railtrack Group Plc on 31 March 2001; how many he holds now; and what value was received for shares sold; [34785]

  (2) what the market value at 31 March 2001 was of shares held by him in Railtrack Group Plc; and what the current market value is of such shares. [34786]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The Government held 1,031,243 shares in Railtrack Group Plc at 31 March 2001, approximately 0.2 per cent. of the total called up share capital. They still holds these shares.

  At the share price of 687p on 31 March 2001, the Government's shareholding was valued at £7.08 million. Trading in the shares of Railtrack Group Plc was suspended on 8 October 2001. At that time the share price was 280, valuing the Government's shareholding at £2.89 million.

  Transport for London
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff are employed by Transport for London working(a) exclusively and (b) 50 per cent. of their time on new train routes in London. [27704]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Rail Strikes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) days work by staff, (b) days work by passengers, (c) trains and (d) passenger journeys have been lost to railway strike action in each year since 1991. [28734]

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

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in each of the last four years, specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30181]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 707W.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [31782]
  215W
  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1129-30W.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will state, for each local authority in London, what the real terms increase in total external support was between(a) 1992–93 and 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 and 2001–02; and what the projected real terms increase will be in 2002–03. [31819]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Because of changes in function, responsibility and area it is not possible to produce a fully consistent set of grant figures for the period from 1992–93 to 2002–03. The main changes comprise the transfer of funding of colleges of further education and sixth form colleges from local authorities to the Further Education

  Table 1

  £ million

  Authority

  Actual 2001–02 grant

  Adjusted 2001–02 grant1

  2002–03 grant

  Adjusted cash increase

  Adjusted real increase

  City of London

  87.307

  85.605

  89.029

  3.424

  1.284

  Camden

  197.281

  184.995

  197.944

  12.950

  8.324

  Greenwich

  222.117

  212.448

  223.376

  10.929

  5.616

  Hackney

  242.677

  238.720

  249.106

  10.386

  4.417

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  144.503

  138.019

  146.490

  8.471

  5.020

  Islington

  199.670

  196.090

  203.933

  7.844

  2.940

  Kensington and Chelsea

  117.917

  113.989

  122.280

  8.292

  5.441

  Lambeth

  260.331

  255.965

  268.418

  12.453

  6.052

  Lewisham

  241.892

  235.029

  244.529

  9.500

  3.623

  Southwark

  269.502

  265.415

  283.523

  18.108

  11.471

  Tower Hamlets

  288.075

  280.332

  296.449

  16.117

  9.107

  Wandsworth

  206.822

  197.065

  204.948

  7.883

  2.955

  Westminster

  198.752

  191.544

  205.117

  13.573

  8.783

  Barking and Dagenham

  146.386

  139.743

  148.240

  8.497

  5.003

  Barnet

  207.164

  190.168

  202.544

  12.376

  7.621

  Bexley

  154.980

  146.360

  156.610

  10.250

  6.590

  Brent

  223.458

  211.269

  223.766

  12.497

  7.214

  Bromley

  172.766

  156.535

  166.674

  10.139

  6.225

  Croydon

  224.286

  219.247

  231.468

  12.221

  6.739

  Ealing

  231.215

  220.207

  231.267

  11.061

  5.554

  Enfield

  218.542

  205.308

  219.733

  14.424

  9.291

  Haringey

  218.050

  211.003

  222.832

  11.829

  6.553

  Harrow

  128.889

  127.855

  134.053

  6.199

  3.002

  Havering

  140.082

  135.491

  142.977

  7.486

  4.098

  Hillingdon

  166.928

  154.842

  165.681

  10.839

  6.967

  Hounslow

  173.953

  161.867

  168.711

  6.845

  2.797

  Kingston upon Thames

  81.060

  74.257

  79.455

  5.198

  3.341

  Merton

  109.805

  106.620

  111.720

  5.100

  2.434

  Newham

  301.631

  297.248

  314.154

  16.906

  9.473

  Redbridge

  181.765

  165.434

  175.930

  10.496

  6.359

  Richmond upon Thames

  77.840

  77.255

  80.404

  3.149

  1.217

  Sutton

  116.266

  106.043

  113.551

  7.508

  4.856

  Waltham Forest

  199.383

  194.705

  203.903

  9.198

  4.329

  GLA—all functions

  1,921.062

  1,882.079

  1,943.191

  61.111

  14.050

  1 For comparison with 2002–03

  216W
  Funding Council and changes associated with the introduction of the Greater London Authority. There are also various smaller changes in function and responsibility.

  Table 1 shows the actual amount of total external support received by London authorities in 2001–02, the adjusted amount for 2001–02 for comparison with 2002–03, the amount for 2002–03, the cash increase relative to the adjusted 2001–02 amount, and the increase in real terms.

  Table 2 shows, for the City and the London boroughs, the actual amounts of total external support received in 1992–93, 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2001–02, together with the actual changes in total external support between 1992–93 and 1996–97 and between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

  For any year total external support is the sum of redistributed non-domestic rates, Revenue Support Grant, Principal Formula Police Grant, SSA Reduction grant and Central Support Protection Grant.
  217W

  Table 2

  £ million

  Authority

  1992–93 grant

  1996–97 grant

  Actual increase between 1992–93 and 1996–97

  1997–98 grant

  2001–02 grant

  Actual increase between 1997–98 and 2001–02

  City of London

  66.322

  91.699

  25.377

  94.473

  87.307

  -7.167

  Camden

  187.375

  177.850

  -9.525

  181.669

  197.281

  15.612

  Greenwich

  192.385

  192.117

  -0.268

  189.742

  222.117

  32.375

  Hackney

  260.536

  232.572

  -27.965

  231.980

  242.677

  10.697

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  164.172

  141.059

  -23.113

  137.485

  144.503

  7.018

  Islington

  207.103

  181.565

  -25.538

  180.452

  199.670

  19.218

  Kensington and Chelsea

  129.902

  109.063

  -20.839

  108.858

  117.917

  9.059

  Lambeth

  304.100

  251.203

  -52.897

  243.876

  260.331

  16.454

  Lewisham

  223.606

  207.480

  -16.126

  210.053

  241.892

  31.840

  Southwark

  248.790

  227.136

  -21.654

  227.260

  269.502

  42.242

  Tower Hamlets

  233.668

  234.105

  0.436

  237.612

  288.075

  50.463

  Wandsworth

  248.595

  203.582

  -45.013

  200.232

  206.822

  6.591

  Westminster

  219.329

  190.100

  -29.229

  194.241

  198.752

  4.511

  Barking and Dagenham

  108.486

  109.785

  1.300

  112.042

  146.386

  34.344

  Barnet

  200.265

  168.138

  -32.127

  170.167

  207.164

  36.997

  Bexley

  139.662

  120.304

  -19.359

  121.680

  154.980

  33.300

  Brent

  261.863

  206.830

  -55.033

  201.552

  223.458

  21.906

  Bromley

  169.135

  137.560

  -31.576

  141.661

  172.766

  31.106

  Croydon

  230.242

  185.432

  -44.810

  187.175

  224.286

  37.112

  Ealing

  249.843

  197.592

  -52.251

  192.255

  231.215

  38.960

  Enfield

  195.798

  172.569

  -23.229

  175.844

  218.542

  42.698

  Haringey

  210.626

  187.379

  -23.246

  184.301

  218.050

  33.749

  Harrow

  135.610

  110.637

  -24.973

  109.234

  128.889

  19.655

  Havering

  139.639

  115.946

  -23.693

  114.841

  140.082

  25.241

  Hillingdon

  153.274

  138.194

  -15.080

  138.589

  166.928

  28.338

  Hounslow

  159.277

  146.096

  -13.181

  147.188

  173.953

  26.765

  Kingston upon Thames

  87.682

  68.505

  -19.177

  68.087

  81.060

  12.973

  Merton

  114.200

  92.488

  -21.712

  92.160

  109.805

  17.645

  Newham

  250.284

  239.128

  -11.156

  242.050

  301.631

  59.582

  Redbridge

  160.990

  142.499

  -18.490

  144.277

  181.765

  37.488

  Richmond upon Thames

  91.913

  64.605

  -27.308

  65.851

  77.840

  11.989

  Sutton

  105.900

  94.605

  -11.294

  95.225

  116.266

  21.040

  Waltham Forest

  197.033

  169.359

  -27.674

  167.912

  199.383

  31.471

  TransPennine Rail Services
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the new TransPennine franchise will ensure that services continue to stop at South Milford station(a) on Sundays and (b) in the evenings when there is no alternative service. [32035]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Services departing from Hull after 19.00 and departing Leeds after 18.45 Mondays to Fridays, 18.15 Saturdays and Sundays, currently call at South Milford and these are protected by the Passenger Service Requirement (PSR). Bidders for the new TransPennine Express franchise have been instructed by the Strategic Rail Authority that services protected by the PSR must be maintained.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has for infrastructure works on the WCML between Rugby and Crewe to(a) alleviate the effects of and (b) reduce the number of crossing moves at (i) Nuneaton, (ii) Lichfield and (iii) Colwich; and what is (A) the current status of, (B) the start date of and (C) the expected completion date for such works; [31985]

  (2) what plans he has for upgrading the power signal boxes on the WCML at (a) Warrington, (b) Preston and (c) Carlisle; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works; [31994]
  218W
  (3) what plans he has for the redevelopment of the Styal Line junction at (a) Wilmslow, (b) Heald Green and (c) Slade Lane on the WCML; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works; [31998]

  (4) what plans he has for upgrading the manual signal boxes at (a) Basford Hall, (b) Crewe Coal Yard, (c) Salop Goods and (d) Grest Lane and what is the (i) status of, (ii) start date of and (iii) expected completion date for such works; [31988]

  (5) what plans he has for infrastructure works to (a) alleviate the effects of and (b) reduce the number of crossing moves (i) to the north and south of Crewe Station on the Stafford to Preston route of the WCML, (ii) at Norton Bridge Junction to and from the Manchester line and (iii) at Basford Hall; and what is (1) the status of, (2) the start date of and (C) the expected completion date for such works; [31989]

  (6) what plans he has for infrastructure works on the WCML between Crewe and Manchester to allow additional capacity between Crewe and Manchester airport; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for the expected resulting capacity increase between Crewe and Manchester airport of such works; [31997]

  (7) what plans he has for infrastructure works on the WCML between Stafford and Colwich to alleviate the effects of slow line conflicts at (a) Milford,

  219W
  (b) Whitehouse and (c) Trent Valley Junction at Stafford; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works; [31987]

  (8) what plans he has for the provision of additional track and for alternative projects, to alleviate the capacity constraints caused by the mixture of fast and slow trains on the WCML between (a) Birmingham and Wolverhampton and (b) Birmingham and Rugby; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the extended completion date for such work; [31986]

  (9) what plans he has for the development of additional tracks on the 2-track stretches of the WCML between Crewe and Carlisle; and what is (a) the percentage of the route due to remain 2-track following from, (b) the status of, (c) the start date of and (d) the expected completion date for such works; [31990]

  (10) what plans he has for redevelopment of the junctions at (a) Ardwick and (b) Stockport (Edgeley) on the WCML; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works; [31993]

  (11) what plans he has for the redevelopment of (a) Acton Grange, (b) Euxton and (c) Farrington Curve Junctions on the WCML; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works; [31991]

  (12) what plans he has for the development of additional tracks on the 2-track stretches of the WCML between (a) Stafford and Colwich and (b) Tamworth and Armitage; and what is (i) the percentage of the route due to remain 2-track following from, (ii) the status of, (iii) the start date of and (iv) the expected completion date for such works; [32087]

  (13) what plans he has for the development of additional tracks on the 3-track stretches of the WCML between Rugby and Attleborough; and what is (i) the percentage of the route due to remain 3-track following from, (ii) the status of, (iii) the start date of and (iv) the expected completion date for such works; [31984]

  (14) what plans he has to redevelop the entrance to Liverpool Lime Street Station on the WCML to reduce capacity constraints; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works [31996]

  (15) what plans he has for works to (a) reduce the length of headways between Carstairs and Slateford on the West Coast Main Line and (b) construct overtaking loops on the WCML between Cairstairs and Slateford; and what is the (i) status of, (ii) start date of and (iii) expected completion date for such works; [32000]

  (16) what plans he has for the provision of (a) additional tracks and (b) alternative projects, to alleviate the capacity constraints caused by an increasing differential in train speeds on the WCML between Euston and Rugby; and what is (i) the current status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works; [31983]

  (17) what plans he has for upgrading the manually operated ground frames on the WCML to the north of Preston; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [31995]
  220W
  (18) what plans he has for infrastructure works to alleviate the capacity constraints on the WCML between Springs Branch and Flyde Junction caused by the mix of speed and crossing movements; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [31992]

  (19) what plans he has to increase the number of tracks along the 2-track section of the WCML to the north of Carlisle; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works; [32001]

  (20) what plans he has for (a) the provision of additional tracks and (b) alternative projects to alleviate capacity constraints caused by differential train speeds on the WCML between Wilmslow and Sandbach; and what is (i) the status of, (ii) the start date of and (iii) the expected completion date for such works. [31999]

  Mr. Byers
  The west coast main line upgrade is a commercial arrangement between Virgin and Railtrack. Work is in hand to deliver Phase 1 outputs in 2003. The train operating companies, freight operators, Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority are currently reviewing the Phase 2 outputs. Discussions are in progress to identify a solution, which provides best value to the taxpayer while optimising both route capacity and operational ability, and which best meets the requirements of the many different users of the line. Various infrastructure works are being considered, as are various timetabling options.

  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 526-27W, on rail passenger projections, from whom the research was commissioned on (a) future rail passenger demand on Eurostar and (b) to develop a model of rail passenger demand; for what reasons his Department did not require a research report to be published; by what means of communication his Department was informed of the research findings; and if he will provide a summary of the main findings from the research. [32547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The research on future rail passenger demand on Eurostar was commissioned from Booz Allen and Hamilton. The Department did not require a research report to be published because of the commercially sensitive nature of the subject. The Department was informed of the research findings by spreadsheet reports and a seven page report. The main findings of the research were that growth in Eurostar passenger and revenues was expected to continue albeit to a lower level than forecast in 1998.

  The research to develop a model of rail passenger demand is on going. The findings of the research are expected to be published following the conclusion of the study. I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column: 426W and 21 January 2002 Official Report, columns 569-70W.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  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 532W, on the Strategic Rail Authority, on what date the final direction and guidance will be published; what implications the update will have for the Strategic Rail Authority plan published on 14 January; and if he will make a statement. [32407]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Final directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority will be published in due course.

  Rail Freight
  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 526W, on rail freight projection, from whom the research was commissioned in both cases; for what reasons his Department did not require a research report to be published; by what means of communication his Department was informed of the research findings; and if he will provide a summary of the main findings from the research. [32546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The research into future demand to move deep sea containers by rail was commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Department did not require a research report to be published because of the commercially sensitive nature of the subject. The Department was informed of the research findings by presentations and a written report.

  The research to review freight modelling techniques across all modes was commissioned from ME&P part of the WSP Group. The research is ongoing and the findings are expected to be published following the conclusion of the study.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Ref 31538,Official Report, column 328W, how much of the £3.5 billion of funding had not been announced prior to 14 January 2002; how much of the funding is capital investment; and how much of this is unallocated. [33407]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: All of the £3.5 billion of public funding for rail freight was included in the rail expenditure figures published in the Ten Year Plan for Transport in July 2000. Around three-quarters of the £3.5 billion is expected to be capital investment. All of it will be allocated in accordance with the mechanisms for applying public funds set out in the Strategic Rail Authority's Freight Strategy, published in May 2001.

  Rail Fares
  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 532W, on the regulation of rail fares, on what date the results of the study on the regulation of fares will be published; what implications the conclusions will have upon the Strategic Rail Authority plan published on 14 January; and if he will make a statement. [32408]
  222W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The existing fares policy has been in operation since the first franchises were let in 1996, with around 40 per cent. of fares subject to regulation. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is now reviewing this policy to see how it might be improved. As part of this review it will be seeking the contribution of industry stakeholders, including both train companies and passengers.

  The SRA will be issuing a consultation document within the next few months. The outcome of this study will be announced as soon as possible. However, until conclusions have been reached about the results of the review it will not be possible to know what implications they may have for the current and future strategic plans.

  Rail Delays
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the total weekly rail delays, in minutes, for each week from 1 June 2001 to 30 January 2002; and if he will make a statement. [31307]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: Delay minutes are an operational matter for Railtrack. The Strategic Rail Authority publishes information on train punctuality and reliability quarterly in "On Track". The issues published on 14 March 2002 will report performance to the end of December 2001. Data on train operating companies' performance is published on a six monthly basis in "National Rail Trends".

  A5 Nesscliffe Bypass
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) the progress made and (b) the expected completion date of the A5 Nesscliffe bypass near Shrewsbury. [32587]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 12 February 2002:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A5 Nesscliffe Bypass.
  We awarded £11.4 million Design and Build Contract for this scheme to Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd on 21 December 2001. Site clearance is due to start this month and, based on the current programme, we expect the bypass to open in Spring 2003.
  Around the time the main works start in March, a public exhibition will be held in Nesscliffe, to explain the planned construction programme to local people. Details of the venue will be sent to you nearer the time.
  If you require any further information, Paul Tully, the Project Manager for the scheme, would be pleased to help. We can be contacted at the Agency's offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL or by telephone on 0121 678 8456.

  Aviation Industry (Emergency State Aid)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with European colleagues regarding Europe-wide aid to airlines; and which European Governments have granted aid to their flag carriers in the last 12 months. [32531]
  223W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidelines issued by the European Commission on emergency state aid for the European aviation industry following the events of 11 September were discussed by Community Transport Ministers at the Transport Councils on 16 October and 7 December 2001.

  A one-month bridging loan of euro 125 million to Sabena from the Belgian Government was approved by the European Commission as rescue aid on 17 October 2001. The French Government have recently notified the Commission that they propose to grant some euro 55 million in emergency aid to French airlines affected by 11 September. In Switzerland a complex financial package was put together in the wake of the collapse of Swissair, which included some euro 650 million of direct aid from the Swiss federal and Canton Governments. We do not have details of aid provided by other European countries outside the European Community.

  Fixed Penalty Notices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fixed penalty notices were issued by(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council in each of the last five years; what the average fine levied in each year was; and what the total sums raised in each year were. [32175]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [33212]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There have been no secondments between DTLR and the companies listed in either 1999–2000, 2000–01 or since April 2001.

  Departmental Meetings (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what occasions he and his Department have held meetings since May 1997 with representatives from(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Exxon-Mobil, (d) Enron, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf; if he will state the purpose of each meeting; and if he will provide details of the outcomes and agreements reached as a result of each meeting. [33215]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Ministers and officials from this Department meet representatives from major oil companies regularly to discuss a range of issues. It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Buses
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to allow longer buses to be used on UK roads. [32910]
  224W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Directive on the dimensions of certain categories of vehicles was amended on 17 January 2002 to allow increases in the length of buses and coaches. The changes include provisions to ensure that longer buses are compatible with UK road layouts. My Department will shortly be consulting on regulations to implement it into UK law.

  At present it is planned to hold a trial of a number of coaches 12.8m in length (current UK maximum is 12m) that will be travelling between Bath, Swindon, London Heathrow airport and London. The purpose of this trial is to assess options for wheelchair accessibility.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the(a) current status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for the channel tunnel rail link phase one project. [32996]

  Mr. Byers
  Section 1 of the channel tunnel rail link, from the channel tunnel to Fawkham junction, is currently on time, on budget and approximately 78 per cent. complete. Work started in 1998 and is due for completion in 2003.

  London Underground (Sickness Absence)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action is being taken to reduce the number of working days lost through absence of staff on medical grounds on the London underground. [32914]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In response to what London Underground (LU) recognised was an unacceptable level of performance during 2000–01, they initiated a programme of activity to address this and get performance moving back to the levels which had been achieved in 1999–2000. A major focus of this activity was to reduce peak hour train cancellations due to the non-availability of train operators, as well as to better manage staff absences of all kinds.

  The benefits of this work are now being realised, with the level of peak cancellations due to the non-availability of train operators now running at less than 20 trains per week, down by 80 per cent. since December 2000, and the level of employee attendance generally, improving. Details of the specific management actions being taken are a matter for LU.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 50W, for what reason London Underground is not able to provide information on absence on medical grounds for (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; [32913]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 50W, on London Underground, for what reason London Underground is unable to disaggregate by year the total for working days lost through authorised absence, unauthorised absence and due to sickness for the period January 1996 to December 2000; [32912]
  225W
  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground Ltd. advises that accurate and consistent figures for the period in question could be provided only by gathering information from individual staff records. This information can therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage participation by his Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33545]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department is not a major direct purchaser of products that could be subject to fair trade, but I am encouraging the catering contractor in my headquarter buildings to attend.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the incidents involving trains carrying(a) radioactive materials and (b) other nuclear materials which have resulted in the radioactive contamination of (i) vehicles and (ii) packaging in the north-west of England in the last six months. [33526]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Such incidents are reported on an annual basis in the review of accidents and incidents including the transport of radioactive material. These reports are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of households in which the head of the household is registered as disabled paid at least(a) 5 per cent., (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 15 per cent. of their gross income in council tax in the last year for which figures are available. [33625]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not available.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33872]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There have been no secondments from DTLR to any of the companies listed within the dates given.

  £

  Mobile phone spend

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Agencies

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  2—

  2—

  247,395.00

  297,960.00

  215,175.00

  Planning Inspectorate

  2—

  2—

  5,400.00

  4,705.25

  2,943.82

  DVLA

  2—

  105.75

  776.44

  2,240.50

  1,200.86

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9,607.44

  10,610.39

  Highways Agency

  126,739.00

  127,716.00

  119,246.00

  139,300.00

  83,631.00

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  1,281.16

  2,741.16

  2,066.60

  927.68

  1,875.68

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  2—

  74,686.00

  88,075.00

  105,130.00

  97,410.00

  226W
  Since April 2001 there has been one inward secondment from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

  Rail Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of the European Union Transport White Paper for vertical integration of the UK rail Industry. [32653]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: EC Directive 2001/14, referred to in the EU Transport White Paper, requires the separation of infrastructure capacity allocation functions from the provision of railway transport services. This does not necessarily preclude vertical integration, and any proposals which meet EU requirements will be afforded due consideration.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34161]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information as to the costs of accountancy services is not available due to disproportionate costs.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34319]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The exact answer required cannot be provided in the details asked for except at disproportionate cost. However, information is available as follows:

  Mobile Phone expenditure for the Department is:

  £

  Fiscal Year

  Mobile phone spend by DTLR

  1997–98

  33,357.57

  1998–99

  157,764.96

  1999–2000

  244,623.72

  2000–01

  332,401.94

  2001–021

  280,042.26

  1 Year to date

  227W

  £

  Mobile phone spend

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Fire Service College

  3,591.00

  3,517.00

  4,183.00

  1,404.00

  2,525.00

  Driving Standards Agency

  13,226.00

  10,791.00

  16,134.00

  21,357.00

  16,504.00

  The Rent Service

  2—

  2—

  57,000.00

  133,000.00

  99,000.00

  NDPBs

  Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust

  1,134.53

  1,412.66

  2,497.9

  1,684.4

  2—

  Audit Commission

  2—

  2—

  2—

  510.17

  1,511.13

  Health and Safety Executive

  2—

  2—

  195,353.00

  239,575.00

  197,344.00

  Housing Corporation

  22,379.00

  22,166.00

  21,088.00

  30,264.00

  34.116.00

  Liverpool Housing Action Trust

  313,000.00

  13,000.00

  13,000.00

  13,000.00

  13,000.00

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  9,942.67

  34,681.00

  48,997.99

  52,764.06

  36,930.40

  Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust

  3,629.00

  1,406.00

  341.00

  682.00

  41.00

  Castle Vale Housing Action Trust

  16,700.00

  18,200.00

  13,300.00

  17,300.00

  12,000.00

  Stonebridge Housing Action Trust

  2,819.00

  2,556.00

  1,838.00

  1,582.00

  1,345.00

  Standards Board

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2,202

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service

  46,000

  47,000

  45,000

  46,000

  459,000

  1 Year to date

  2 Figures unavailable

  3 Estimated figures

  4 Projection to end of fiscal year

  Notes:

  Figures do not reflect machinery of Government changes

  Figures are unavailable from the remaining NDPBs, without incurring disproportionate cost

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34286]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information as to legal costs incurred by the Department is unavailable due to disproportionate costs.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if he will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34374]

  Dr. Whitehead
  A list showing the amounts spent by DTLR (C) and each agency has been placed in the Libraries of the House. As much information as can be readily retrieved has been set out, though this differs between agencies, some of whom could not provide all the information required without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure in respect of Ministers is not recorded separately but is included within the figures for DTLR(C).

  For overseas travel the Department pays flat rate per diem allowances as advised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Accordingly it is not possible to determine separate accommodation and food costs.
  228W
  It is the Department's policy not to reimburse staff directly for alcohol costs. However, where in some cases staff are paid a flat rate allowance for subsistence costs this may be spent on alcohol but information on this is not available.

  Information in respect of NDPBs is not available due to disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by his Department and how much reclaimed. [34448]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The exact answer required cannot be provided in the detail asked for except at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the public money going to the railways in the 10-year plan will support investment in new facilities. [33996]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 871–72W.

  Electoral Modernisation
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what action he is taking to allow voting online; and if he will make a statement; [34331]
  229W
  (2) what plans he has to propose an amendment of the law to allow voters to vote at any polling station; and if he will make a statement. [34333]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The development of online voting, which we are pursuing in partnership with the Electoral Commission as part of our programme of electoral modernisation, will allow people to vote wherever they have internet access, including in any polling station. The aim of this programme is to make voting more accessible, maintaining the security and integrity of the electoral process. Through a range of projects, including research, development and the piloting of innovations, we would expect an e-enabled general election sometime after 2006.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to encourage higher turnout at elections; and if he will make a statement. [34330]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As the Electoral Commission recognised in its report—Election 2001—it is above all the quality and persuasiveness of the policies put forward by the political parties, and their ability to motivate voters, that will determine future turnout trends. For their part, the Government are committed to making voting more accessible, with arrangements more suited to today's lifestyles, while maintaining the security and integrity of the electoral process.

  Accordingly, we have established a programme of electoral modernisation, working with the Electoral Commission, and other stakeholders, which includes developing electronic voting, with the expectation of an e-enabled general election sometime after 2006.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to increase voter registration; and if he will make a statement. [34332]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Measures to promote public awareness of all aspects of the electoral system are now the responsibility of the Electoral Commission, under Section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I understand that the Commission intends to run two advertising campaigns each year, in the spring to encourage rolling registration in time for local government elections and in the autumn to encourage completion and return of the annual canvass form.

  Student Accommodation (Houses in Multiple Occupation)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he intends to take to restrict the use of houses in multiple occupation for students. [34753]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government have no specific plans to restrict the use of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) by students. However, the Government are committed to raising the standards that exist in this part of the private rented sector. We have already consulted on our plans to introduce a national licensing scheme for HMOs. We believe that alongside our plans to introduce a new housing fitness regime and the selective licensing of landlords in areas of low housing demand we will achieve a real improvement in the quality of the private rented sector.
  230W
  The measures we are pursuing will provide greater clarity as to what constitutes an HMO (currently a real difficulty for local authorities and landlords—particularly as to whether student households fall within the definition). Also, licensing criteria would include the physical condition of the property, the provision of relevant safety certificates, the fitness of the licensee and their management competency. This will benefit not only the occupants of these types of properties, many of whom will be students, but also responsible landlords and other local residents.

  Domestic Violence Survivors' Refuges
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many refuges for survivors of domestic violence have been taken back into direct management by registered social landlords in each of the last five years. [34754]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is not recorded by the Department, nor are we aware of any centralised location where this is stored.

  The Department has asked local authorities to collect current information (including with regard to refuges and other supported housing schemes) as part of the mapping of all housing related support services in preparation for supporting people. Information will be available by September.

  Noise Insulation (Schools)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out his Department's policy on noise insulation for schools in respect of areas where(a) noise insulation regulations apply and (b) noise barriers are to be installed in a discretionary scheme by the Highways Agency. [34752]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 apply to dwellings and other buildings used for residential purposes that are affected by a new or substantially altered road. Schools do not fall within this definition of residential use. However, residential accommodation belonging to schools may qualify for insulation.

  The criteria for the Highways Agency to apply in considering the need for additional noise barriers that could be provided under the discretionary powers within the Highways Act was answered to the House in a written answer on 22 March 1999, Official Report, columns 50–51W.

  The assessment of need in these cases has been based on the number of residential properties affected, in order to remain consistent with the application of the noise insulation regulations to highway improvement schemes.

  Advanced Train Protection System
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the advanced train protection system to be installed and operational on all trains. [34572]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A steering group jointly chaired by the Strategic Rail Authority and Railway Safety is presently evaluating the options for the extension of automatic train
  231W
  protection, including their timings and their costs, and expects to report to the Health and Safety Commission in the spring. The Commission will then advise Ministers.

  Park Homes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many park home sites operate under planning permission but without licences. [34814]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 most park home sites must have a site licence issued by the local authority. There are some exemptions from the need for a licence, for example, in respect of parks operated by local authorities or sites used to accommodate those engaged in building work. We do not hold information on the number of sites for which licences are not held.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to prevent the operation of park home sites without a full licence. [34815]

  Ms Keeble
  One of the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party was that there should be a requirement for local authorities to be notified of a change of ownership of a park, so as to allow a licence to be issued the new owner. In our response to the Working Party's recommendations, we have indicated that we agree that a formal requirement for notification of a sale could help authorities to operate controls more effectively. We will consider this, along with other recommendations, when taking forward the agenda for reform set out in our recent response to the Working Party's report.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he will take to spread best practice in the park home industry to all park home sites. [34813]

  Ms Keeble
  Following recommendations made by the Park Homes Working Party, we have commissioned and published good practice guidance to local authorities on their roles with regard to harassment and illegal eviction, and site licensing. In addition, the Working Party suggested that the park home industry's voluntary model agreement for residents and site owners should be reviewed following discussion between residents' and site owners' bodies. We have welcomed this proposal and discussions between the parties have already begun.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he will take to prevent abuse of service charges for park home residents. [34812]

  Ms Keeble
  Following a recommendation made by the Park Homes Working Party, we have commissioned a study of the economics of the park homes industry to assist in consideration of the principles on which pitch fees should be set and reviewed, and the maximum level of commission which should be set. We will consider the position on the payments made by park home residents in the light of the findings of this study.
  232W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and if he will make a statement. [34811]

  Ms Keeble
  Proposals for amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 were included in the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party. Following consultation, we issued our response to the working party's report on 29 November last year, and placed copies of it in the Library of the House. This gives a detailed response to each of the working party's recommendations and indicates how we intend to take them forward.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total underspend in his Department was on(a) capital and (b) non-capital expenditure in each financial year since May 1997. [34027]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: It is not possible to provide a split between capital and non-capital expenditure on a cash basis, except at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he has taken to strengthen the enforcement of regulations related to the handling of asbestos; and what future proposals he has in this area. [34809]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Through its programme of inspection of licensed asbestos work, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has made it a priority to target specific categories of licensees and to inspect sites where the proposed method of work gives cause for concern.

  Enforcement under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (as amended) (CAWR) and the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 (as amended) has continued to rise significantly.

  A proposed amendment to CAWR, will place a duty on occupiers and anyone else who has maintenance and repair responsibilities to manage asbestos in workplace premises. The regulations are also being amended to include a proposal to require accreditation for the analysis of material to determine whether it contains asbestos.

  The guidance in the existing CAWR Approved Code of Practice for work with asbestos is also being reviewed.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many prosecutions have been brought, and by which agencies, for breach of asbestos-related regulations in each of the past 10 years. [34810]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)'s prosecution statistics are based on the information laid by health and safety inspectors before the courts in England and Wales and on the charges preferred in Scottish courts. Each information laid or charge
  233W
  preferred relates to a breach of an individual legal requirement and a duty holder may be prosecuted for more than one of these breaches.

  The table sets out proceedings taken over the last five years by HSE under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (as amended) and the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 (as amended), the main regulations applying to asbestos activities. Access to older data is not readily available and would require restoration of archived databases. HSE does not record prosecutions taken by other agencies.

  Year

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  1996–97

  42

  34

  1997–98

  49

  43

  1998–99

  46

  43

  1999–2000

  151

  49

  2000–011

  94

  59

  1 Data for 2000–01 is provisional and subject to change.

  Note:

  Data from HSE's Field Operations Directorate (FOD), Hazardous Installations Directorate (HID), Land Divisions (exc mines, pipelines, explosives) and Nuclear Safety Divisions (NSD) (conventional safety only).

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives local authorities on the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 in applications for and enforcement of possession orders to evict travellers from unauthorised occupation of public parks and open spaces. [34897]

  Ms Keeble
  No specific guidance has been given to local authorities on the requirements of the Human Rights Act in relation to applications for and enforcement of possession orders to evict travellers from unauthorised occupation of public parks and open spaces.

  However, local authorities as public bodies are subject to the Human Rights Act and need to weigh this as a consideration in reaching decisions about possession order actions.

  Car Safety
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on making car fronts safer since the publication of the Road Safety Strategy. [34845]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) on 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 505W.

  The European Commission's proposal to introduce pedestrian protection features in new cars by means of a negotiated agreement with vehicle manufacturers was approved by the Internal Market Council on 26 November 2001. It is currently being considered by the European Parliament.

  Llandogo-Monmouth Bus Service
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the 234W
  results were of the bus compliance officers investigation into the stagecoach red and white service between Llandogo and Monmouth; and what subsequent action has been taken. [35008]

  Ms Keeble
  Monitoring of the service by vehicle inspectorate bus compliance officers took place during December 2001. One timetable irregularity was found.

  As a result of the monitoring exercise, the traffic commissioner decided that Red and White Services Ltd. should be reminded of their obligations to operate services in accordance with the registration, and that they could face disciplinary action if they do not. A letter to that effect was sent to the operator by the Welsh Traffic Area Office on 23 January 2002. The letter also advised that further reliability monitoring of the service would be conducted in the near future.

  A47 Corridor
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for a multi-modal transport study of the A47(T) corridor in eastern England; who is undertaking the study; which length of the A47 corridor is to be included; when the study is to begin; when the report is expected to be published; and if he will publish submissions from interested parties which have already been made as part of the consultation process. [R] [35059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The A47 between Norwich and Peterborough was included in the programme of Multi-Modal Studies announced on 23 March 1999 as a Tranche 3 Study. The study incorporates both the A47 between its junction with the A1, to the west of Peterborough, and the beginning of the Norwich Southern Bypass, just west of Norwich, and the Peterborough to Norwich railway via Ely.

  On 28 January 2002, the Government Office for the East of England appointed WS Atkins Consultants Ltd. to undertake the study. Determining the precise work programme will be part of the first phase of the study, but it is expected to report to the Regional Planning Body in early 2003.

  Consultation with key stakeholders, interested bodies and organisations, elected members and the public will be an essential part of the study. Results will be presented by the consultants in a "Consultation and Participation" report.

  Representation of the People Act
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce proposals to amend the Representation of the People Act 2000 to allow citizens of EU member states resident in the UK to vote in Westminster parliamentary elections. [34979]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government's view is that extending the franchise in this way would need to be by reciprocal agreement with all other EU member states. There are no current proposals by the European Commission for action in this area.

  Fire Service (London)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the integrated clothing project for the fire service in London. [35809]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I announced the results of the third round of the Private Finance Initiative for the fire service on 25 October 2001. The indicative bid which London submitted on behalf of a number of fire authorities for an integrated clothing project was not one of the bids selected for support. The unsuccessful bidders were offered feedback on their bids. A meeting has been arranged between officials and representatives of the fire service in London.

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what communications have taken place between Ministers, officials and advisers with the City of London Corporation in relation to the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill since 1997. [35659]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As with many other Private Bills, we have had—and continue to have—discussions and correspondence with the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill.

  Ports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has for action on initiative 4.2.8 of Modern Ports: A UK Policy, that suggests a reserve of power to safeguard port marine safety. [35874]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We consulted in March 2000 on a proposed reserve power, which was recommended in our review of the Pilotage Act which was published in July 1998. We proposed that, if it appeared to the Secretary of State that a harbour authority had failed, or was failing, to discharge any of its statutory functions, and that a serious danger to navigation or serious threat of pollution was likely to result, he should have the power, after consulting the harbour authority and such other persons as he considered appropriate, to give the authority appropriate directions. There has been no opportunity so far to promote the necessary legislation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will abolish the Statutory Harbour Undertakings (Pilotage Accounts) Regulations 1988. [35871]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These Regulations are made under Section 42 of the Harbours Act which relates to the accounts of statutory harbour authorities relating to the harbour activities and empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe their form and con tent. The Pilotage Act 1987, which transferred responsibility for providing pilotage services to competent harbour authorities and empowered them to levy pilotage charges, extended this provision to pilotage accounts.

  The effect of the 1987 Act is to require pilotage accounts to be kept separately, although there is no similar requirement in relation to any other harbour authority activity. A review of the 1987 Act, published in 1998,
  236W
  recommended that this separation was no longer needed, but there has been no opportunity to change that requirement.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that the role of competent harbour authorities is separate from the ownership of a port. [35873]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A comprehensive review of responsibility for pilotage was undertaken after the 'Sea Empress' grounding five years ago. It was published, with Ministers' conclusions, in July 1998. It was a principal conclusion of that review that pilotage ought to remain a harbour authority function, and become fully integrated with other port safety services under harbour authority control.

  Planning
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of appeals against a refusal of planning permission were received by the Inspectorate during the final month of the six month time limit in the last three years. [R] [35471]

  Ms Keeble
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Mr. John Burnett, dated 12 February 2002:
  Sally Keeble has asked me to reply to your Question about the percentage of planning appeals made against refusal of planning permission during the final month of the six-month time limit in the last 3 years.
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of appeals

  Number submitted in the final month

  Percentage submitted in the final month

  1999–2000

  13,408

  4,360

  33

  2000–01

  15,105

  4,643

  31

  2001–021

  7,175

  1,983

  28

  Total

  35,688

  10,986

  31

  1 Up to the end of July 2001 LPA decision dates

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to introduce a statutory duty on local planning authorities to enforce planning controls; [R] [35469]

  (2) what plans he has to provide additional powers to local planning authorities to encourage compliance with enforcement orders. [R] [35475]

  Ms Keeble
  As we indicated in our Planning Green Paper published on 12 December 2001, we intend to review the current arrangements for enforcement by local planning authorities.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to enable a member of the public to have locus standi to apply for a prerogative order of mandamus or equivalent in respect of a breach of planning controls. [R] [35481]
  237W
  Ms Keeble
  We have no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he intends to amend section 87 of the Town and Country Act 1971 and section 171 B of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 relating to the use of a building as a single dwelling house. [R] [35470]

  Ms Keeble
  Section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 was replaced by sections 171B, 172, 173 and 173A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. All these sections deal with aspects of local planning authorities' enforcement powers. As we indicated in our Planning Green Paper we intend to review the current enforcement arrangements.

  Marine Accident Investigation Branch
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many investigations have been concluded by the MAIB;

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Administrative inquiries completed

  695

  628

  636

  546

  459

  Full investigations completed

  55

  40

  39

  40

  47

  MAIB running costs in £000

  1,106

  1,579

  1,205

  1,450

  1,372

  Staff involved directly in investigations

  11

  11

  12

  14

  15

  1 Provisional

  Solway Harvester
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from the Isle of Man authorities regarding the timing of the publication of the MAIB report into the Solway Harvester. [35103]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has had no representations from the Isle of Man authorities regarding the timing of the MAIB report into the Solway Harvester.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the police in the Isle of Man on the timing of the release of the MAIB report into the sinking of the Solway Harvester. [35468]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has had no discussions with the Isle of Man police regarding the timing of the MAIB report into the Solway Harvester.

  Second Homes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the most recent figures for the number of(a) second residences which are entitled to the 50 per cent. council tax rebate and (b) holiday residences taxed as such for business purposes broken down by (i) parish, (ii) district, (iii) unitary authority and (iv) county for the nations and regions of the UK, expressed (A) numerically and (B) as a percentage of the housing stock. [35568]
  238W
  what the cost incurred was; and how many staff were employed in MAIB investigations in each of the last five years. [35736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The MAIB receives, on average about 1,500 accident reports each year. Only a small number are subjected to a full investigation but many more are followed up in Administrative Inquiries where further information is sought. A number of these lead to the identification and promulgation of lessons to be learned. The sole aim of the MAIB is to prevent accidents at sea.

  The figures are produced in tabular form.

  Prior to 1999 only selected investigation reports were published. All investigations completed since have resulted in the production of a report that has been made publicly available. In very general terms the MAIB has tended to look at fewer accidents overall each year but more thoroughly.

  The costs of all investigations are met from the running cost budget of the Branch. This has increased in each of the past five years. The greater expenditure incurred in 1998 was due to additional costs involved in conducting a higher than normal number of underwater surveys.

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is as follows:

  (a) We estimate that approximately 220,000 second homes (defined as furnished and no-one's main residence) in England were entitled to the 50 per cent. council tax discount as at October 2000. This represents 1.0 per cent. of the total domestic housing stock in England. Comparable figures for each parish, district and county/unitary area in England are not available.

  (b) 15,507 premises in England were subject to non-domestic rates and let as self-catering holiday homes at 1 January 2002. While many of these premises are individual self-catering holiday homes, some whole sites of holiday homes are counted as a single premises for rating purposes, even though they contain many individual homes. The figures do not include premises where it is not intended that the property is let as holiday accommodation for more than 140 days in a year as these are subject to council tax and not to non-domestic rates. Nor do the figures include bed and breakfast accommodation that is liable to non-domestic rates.

  The figure mentioned is equivalent to the 0.07 per cent. of the total domestic housing stock in England, as recorded at 1 April 2001 on the 2001 HIP Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix. Although the HIP figures include holiday residences, it is possible that they are not counted in the same way as they are for non-domestic rating purposes.

  I will write separately to the hon. Member with equivalent figures for each principal local authority in England. Separate figures are not, however, available for parishes.
  239W
  Figures for (a) and (b) for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for the relevant devolved Administrations.

  Pilots
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of section G(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 1971 on the employment without work-permits of non-EU pilots as crew for UK-based airlines. [35733]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials have discussed the working of immigration legislation in the aviation field regularly with colleagues in the employment and immigration services. In principle I am not opposed to non-EU pilots directly employed by UK airlines having to obtain work permits, but I could not support any proposals for changing current arrangements which would create operational difficulties for UK airlines in terms of their ability to wet-lease foreign aircraft to meet emergency situations or seasonal fluctuations in demand, or for other acceptable reasons within the terms of the EU legislation governing the use of foreign registered aircraft by community airlines.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he has taken to encourage other EU countries to validate UK national pilot licences on the same basis as the UK validates the national licences of other EU member states. [35732]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The matter of validation of national pilot licences within the EU is addressed by EC Directive 91/670/EEC. The Directive requires EU member states to recognise those licences issued by other member states but allows an individual state to require additional requirements if there is reasonable doubt as to the equivalence of the licence. In compliance with the Directive, the UK requires all applicants for licence validation to pass an examination in national aviation law and in some circumstances further proficiency checks. Other EU member states similarly impose additional requirements for the validation of other states' licences, including UK pilot licences. These additional requirements are required to meet the national legislation of the state and are in accordance with the terms of the EC Directive 91/670/EEC.

  Speed Signs (Bredhurst)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions further to his answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 457W, on speeding signs in Bredhurst, if he will grant authorisation for the installation of interactive speeding signs in Kent where the sites have been approved and the parish councils are willing to pay for their installation. [35569]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The decision to seek approval to install speed activated signs rests with the local authority responsible. In this case Kent county council. If Bredhurst parish council believe their village is suitable for these signs they would need in the first instance to approach 240W
  Kent county council. The council would need to consider whether the site is appropriate and seek approval from my Department.

  My Department is currently considering the findings of a report prepared by TRL on the effectiveness of speed activated signs in reducing vehicle speeds. We hope to start preparing guidance for local authorities with a view to authorising those signs which the report has found to be effective later in the year.

  Maritime Professionals
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to increase the number of people becoming trainers of maritime professionals; and if he will make a statement. [35566]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Recruitment is a matter for the individual shipping companies themselves. There are Government measures, however, to assist and encourage the training and employment of British seafarers. We provide financial support for seafarer training through the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme. Following a review of SMarT in autumn/winter 2000 and the receipt of EU State Aid clearance, additional courses will be included in the scheme and levels of funding will be increased. We introduced the tonnage tax option as part of the Finance Act 2000, a key feature of which is a minimum training obligation. This feature is unique to the UK, and requires each shipping company opting for the tonnage tax to recruit and train one officer trainee each year for every 15 officer posts in its fleet and also give consideration to employment and training opportunities for ratings.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has make of(a) safety and (b) working conditions on board ships; and if he will make a statement. [35567]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Marine surveyors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) carry out inspections which include an assessment of compliance with health and safety requirements and other regulations which safeguard working conditions on board ships, and take any necessary action where deficiencies are found. On foreign ships in UK ports these inspections are carried out as part of a co-ordinated inspection regime with European partners.

  Owners and operators of ships have a duty to provide a safe working environment for those on board ship, and employers on UK ships are required to use risk assessment to comply with health and safety legislation.

  Ships' Officers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the manpower strength of ships' officers. [35565]
  241W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Exact figures are not available. However, the latest available estimates are that there are about 15,000 active UK seafarer officers employed at sea assuming a retirement age of 65, or about 13,000 assuming a retirement age of 57.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the international studies and investigations of exposure to organophosphates in aviation engine lubricants, with particular reference to pilots and flight staff, which are under review in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [35402]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are a number of investigations under way into episodic contamination from aviation engine lubricants that include, but are not confined to, the possibility of cabin air contamination by `organophosphates'. This includes work in the UK involving the relevant aeroplane and engine manufacturers, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

  Recent research sponsored by the CAA, and conducted by DSTL Porton Down, made a specific toxicological review of the products liberated from pyrolysed aviation engine oil. Further follow up work by the CAA is in progress. International studies into the quality of cabin air supplied to crew and passengers are being conducted by several bodies of repute. These include the US National Academy of Sciences, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aviation Propulsion Lubricants Committee, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and two EC Fifth Framework projects.

  This research, together with that produced by CAA and industry itself, will be considered by a new specialist group involving the FAA, the Joint Aviation Authorities and industry representatives, tasked with reviewing the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) and Federal Aviation Requirements (FAR) design requirements for cabin ventilation and pressurisation. This Department will continue to monitor the outcome of research into episodic contamination through the aviation health working group.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) running costs and (b) total budget are for the English regional development agencies in 2001–02. [33994]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The RDAs' net annual budget and administrative costs (running costs) for the financial year 2001–02 are as follows:

  £000

  Regional development agency

  Net budget1

  Administration budget

  One North East

  161,653

  12,853

  North West Development Agency

  281,089

  14,956

  Yorkshire Forward

  245,437

  9,989

  East Midlands Development Agency

  96,940

  7,528

  Advantage West Midlands

  170,721

  8,793

  East of England Development Agency

  62,113

  5,836

  242W

  £000

  Regional development agency

  Net budget1

  Administration budget

  South East of England Development Agency

  108,859

  7,143

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  92,059

  9,099

  London Development Agency

  298,139

  9,470

  Total

  1,517,010

  85,667

  1 Excluding receipts

  These are the latest figures available and are excluding receipts. The changes from the original budget reflect in-year additional funding for things such as the Business Recovery fund to help small businesses deal with the foot and mouth crisis and new programmes such as the regional centres of manufacturing excellence.

TREASURY

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints have been reported in his Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers. [25331]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The procedures for making complaints under the Civil Service Code are set out in the Treasury Staff Terms and Conditions Handbook. Civil servants are encouraged, in the first instance, to raise complaints with their line manager. If for any reason this is not felt to be possible, perhaps because the line manager is part of the complaint, individuals may take their complaint to one of two nominated officials.

  It is not possible to provide a comprehensive figure for the number of complaints made within this department under paragraph 11 of the Code as there is no requirement for managers to report to the centre details of complaints that are resolved within the management line.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional security measures are planned by his Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31784]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has a wide range of measures in place to protect against theft and fraud. These include: physical security measures (security patrols, access control); sound business procedures (restricted access to the payment system, separation of duties, police checks on recruits); protection of assets (system of recording assets, security markings).

  These procedures are regularly reviewed.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of his Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32817]
  243W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for setting the retirement age for all members of the Senior Civil Service. This is age 60. Heads of Departments and Agency Chief Executives have flexibility to retain members of the Senior Civil Service beyond age 60 if they judge it in the public interest and they are satisfied about the fitness and efficiency of the individual to carry out his or her duties.

  The policy for all other staff of HM Treasury and its agency the Debt Management Office is that they also retire at age 60.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by his Department in each of the last 24 months; and if he will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33227]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The information on the number of television sets within a specific technical specification is not held.

  There is no specific advice on the purchase of televisions, apart from the general procurement advice and guidance given on achieving best value for money on any purchase from Government funds.

  10-Year Transport Plan
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the total transport 10-year plan financial envelope has been increased by £2.2 billion additional money; and whether it represents new money resulting from discussions between the Treasury and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; [33768]

  (2) when he allocated an additional £2.2 billion of funding for the 10-year transport plan; and if he will make a statement. [33928]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: In April 2001 an additional provision of £1.962 billion was made to the 10-year transport plan, for payment over the years 2001–02 to 2005–06.

  £770 million has been made available in the Spending Review 2000 period. Decisions on funding the remaining £1.2 billion, due to become payable 2003–04 to 2005–06, will be taken in Spending Review 2002.

  DTLR has allocated £290 million additional funding to the 10-year transport plan from unused rail provision in 2000–01.

  Therefore, as things stand, an additional £2.252 billion has been allocated to the 10-year transport plan since the plan was published in July 2000.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for
  244W
  (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if he will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case; [34380]

  (2) if he will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by his Department and how much reclaimed. [34455]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is not held in the format required and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much public money each Capita-administered Government scheme has paid out; [33987]

  (2) how many Government contracts Capita has; and how much these are worth. [33988]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government plans to outsource future projects to Capita. [33985]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Each department is responsible for deciding whether it has outsourcing requirements. In any such procurement, selection would be through competitive tendering and on a value for money basis.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the number of heavily indebted poor countries having to borrow in order to meet the conditions attached to debt relief under that initiative. [34759]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no requirement for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) to borrow in order to qualify for debt relief under the HIPC initiative. A key feature of HIPC is that debt relief should be linked to poverty reduction, and the conditions for the HIPC initiative reflect this.

  In order to qualify for debt relief, countries must develop a nationally-owned and led poverty reduction strategy, which sets out how the country will spend savings from debt relief, together with other resources and aid flows, in order to maximise the impact on poverty reduction.

  For all countries that have qualified for debt relief, the IMF and World bank have carried out a detailed debt sustainability analysis, which Treasury officials, together with colleagues in the Department for International Development, have examined carefully and commented on, taking into account any new concessional borrowing to finance the poverty reduction strategies.
  245W
  These analyses underline the critical importance of further financial support for many HIPC countries if they are to achieve the millennium development goals. For this reason the UK Government have been at the forefront of pressing for substantial increase in the global levels of development finance including grants and highly concessional loans. They have also insisted that these analyses are updated to take into account worsening global growth prospects and declines in terms of trade.

  Promoting Sport in the Community
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken on the proposal contained in the Treasury consultation paper, "Promoting Sport in the Community"; and what were its conclusions. [34513]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have just concluded their consultation exercise on the best way to support community amateur sports clubs that make a positive contribution to the community. Ministers will be considering the responses to the consultation and as with all policy proposals, an RIA will be carried out if there is a significant impact on business, in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason property transactions in Williton, Somerset, are exempt from stamp duty; and for what reason transactions in Brompton Regis, Somerset are not exempt. [34965]

  Mr. Boateng
  For England, the stamp duty exemption for disadvantaged areas is available for the 15 per cent. most deprived wards as identified by the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000. In Somerset, the ward of Williton falls within this category but the area of Brompton Regis is not within a qualifying ward.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indicators of housing need the ward-based statistics to be collected by the Office for National Statistics will include. [34931]

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

  Letter from Len Cook for Mr. David Kidney, dated 12 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on ward based housing need indicators. (34931)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is currently leading the development of a web based Neighbourhood Statistics service which will provide a wide range of information about deprived

  Table 2: UK employee jobs in manufacturing (seasonally adjusted) 2001

  Levels

  Change over month

  Latest 3 months averages

  Change 3 months on 3 months one year ago

  Latest 3 months on 3 months one year ago (percentage)

  December 2000

  3,896

  —

  —

  —

  —

  January 2001

  3,896

  0

  3,902

  -117

  -2.9

  February

  3,887

  -9

  3,893

  -120

  -3.0

  246W
  neighbourhoods, including a number of housing needs indicators. The plan is to introduce this service by March 2004, but the core of the system will be the information that will be available from the 2001 Census of Population and Housing in 2003.
  A prototype of this system is available now on the ONS web site (www.statistics.gov.uk) and this contains ward-based Indices of Deprivation, 2000, compiled from a range of variables. This prototype will be enhanced during 2002.
  A number of housing needs indicators at ward level will be able to be derived from the 2001 Census data, including tenure, sharing, multiple occupation, overcrowding, number of rooms, basic amenities and vacant properties.
  ONS is also working with a range of other Government Departments and Agencies to develop a set of ongoing indicators, including housing needs, as part of the Neighbourhood Statistics Service. These will be introduced from 2004 onwards and will cover, affordability, dwelling stock, unfit housing and disrepair, and vacant properties.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs in manufacturing industry were lost(a) in each of the past 10 years and (b) in each month in 2001. [34835]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Paul Flynn, dated 12 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about how many jobs in manufacturing industry were lost (a) in each of the past 10 years and (b) in each month in 2001. (34835)
  The information requested is shown in the attached tables. Table 1 shows the number of employee jobs in manufacturing for 1992 to 2001. Table 2 shows the number of employee jobs in manufacturing over the period January to November 2001. Rolling three-month averages are shown to reduce the variability in the data.
  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. The data are published in Statbase on the National Statistics website at www.statistics.gov.uk under series identifier YEJL.

  Table 1: UK employee jobs in manufacturing (seasonally adjusted) 1992–2001

  Thousand

  Change over year

  Percentage change over year

  June 1991

  4,372

  —

  —

  June 1992

  4,146

  -226

  -5.2

  June 1993

  3,960

  -186

  -4.5

  June 1994

  3,975

  15

  0.4

  June 1995

  4,076

  101

  2.5

  June 1996

  4,121

  45

  1.1

  June 1997

  4,185

  64

  1.6

  June 1998

  4,204

  19

  0.5

  June 1999

  4,068

  -136

  -3.2

  June 2000

  3,965

  -103

  -2.5

  June 2001

  3,837

  -128

  -3.2

  247W

  Table 2: UK employee jobs in manufacturing (seasonally adjusted) 2001

  Levels

  Change over month

  Latest 3 months averages

  Change 3 months on 3 months one year ago

  Latest 3 months on 3 months one year ago (percentage)

  March

  3,881

  -6

  3,888

  -114

  -2.9

  April

  3,876

  -5

  3,881

  -112

  -2.8

  May

  3,858

  -19

  3,872

  -111

  -2.8

  June

  3,837

  -20

  3,857

  -117

  -2.9

  July

  3,826

  -11

  3,840

  -124

  -3.1

  August

  3,808

  -18

  3,824

  -131

  -3.3

  September

  3,790

  -17

  3,808

  -134

  -3.4

  October

  3,777

  -14

  3,792

  -141

  -3.6

  November

  3,760

  -16

  3,776

  -146

  -3.7

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his intended policy at the ECOFIN meeting on 12 February regarding the Commission's position on the stability and growth pact. [35100]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The UK has consistently said that we support a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact, taking into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage participation by his Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33546]

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 139W, on Fair Trade goods, if he will review during Fair Trade Fortnight the amount of fairly traded goods used in his Department. [35453]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is not participating directly in Fair Trade Fortnight. The Government's contribution is through the Department for International Development, which is providing £120,000 to the Fairtrade Foundation over three years (2001–2003) in support of its efforts to target new groups through its annual Fair Trade Fortnight campaigns.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35935]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number of cases of work-related stress dealt with by the Department's Welfare service was: 11 in the year from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001; and 34 from 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001. No figures are available for 1999–2000.

  No compensation has been paid to employees for work-related stress. The number of working days lost due to work-related stress was: 190 days between 1 January
  248W
  1999 and 31 December 1999; 230 days between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2000; and 361 days between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2001. The information requested about the cost of the number of working days lost due to work-related stress could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Procedures put in place to reduce work-related stress include: a stress audit and follow-up work (cost £44,240); the provision of a staff welfare and counselling service (cost £31,900 per year); stress management training (cost £3,525) and complementary therapies (cost £2,350).

  Lamfalussy Report
  Mr. Spring: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals the Government will be making to the European Council at Barcelona on the implementation of the Lamfalussy report; and if he will make a statement. [35853]
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government note as a positive step forward recent agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on Lamfalussy implementation. We believe it is now important to get on and implement the main Lamfalussy recommendations. In particular, it is important to ensure that consultation and transparency is part of the process for EC securities legislation; to prioritise those legislative measures that will deliver an effective single market; and to ensure that legislation is principles-based and flexible.

  Welsh GDP
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate changes in the proportion of Welsh GDP as a percentage of the UK economy in 2001. [35625]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Adam Price, dated 12 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on estimating the proportion of Welsh Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a percentage of the UK economy in 2001. (35625)
  The latest data available are for the year 1999, and were published as an ONS News Release on 27 February 2001.
  These data show that in 1999 Wales accounted for 4 per cent. of the UK GDP (excluding Extra-Regio—this comprises compensation of employees and gross operating surplus which cannot be assigned to regions).
  The ONS is currently compiling estimates for data up to the year 2000. We plan to publish these estimates later in the spring.

  249W
  The publication referred to in this answer is available in the House of Commons Library and on the ONS website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/regionalaccounts.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compensation proposals will be forthcoming in respect of those persons who have opted out of SERPS and who had their pension policies affected by delayed payments from the Treasury, as a result of the computer error last year. [35737]

  Ruth Kelly
  Where there is a delay in paying age related rebates to those with appropriate personal pensions, compensation will be considered where it can be demonstrated that a loss has been suffered. The Inland Revenue can consider and pay compensation under their Financial Redress Scheme.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he has made to departmental expenditure ceilings within the controlled total for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 since the Budget. [27925]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government will seek any resources additional to departmental budgets in the usual way through the Supply process, which includes the announcement to Parliament of additions to Departmental Expenditure Limits via parliamentary answers.

  GDP/Revenues Ratio
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the ratio of(a) income tax revenue and (b) national insurance revenue to GDP if GDP is (i) 1 per cent. above trend and (ii) 1 per cent. below trend in (1) the first, (2) the second and (3) subsequent years; and if he will make a statement. [34540]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's estimate of the impact of the economic cycle on the public finances is set out in "Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle" (HM Treasury, March 1999).

  Reputational Externalities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 705W, on reputational externalities, if he will state the reasoning underlying the statements concerning reputational externalities made to the National Audit Office reported on in footnote 10 and paragraphs 44–45 of HC54 of Session 2000–01 'The financial analysis of the London Underground Public Private Partnerships'; and if he will make a statement. [34887]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I presume the hon. Member is referring to footnote 8 in the said document. The comments contained in the NAO report are self-explanatory. The hon. Member will find details of the financial analysis behind the value for money appraisal of the London Underground PPP in the final assessment report produced by London Underground.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' underspending against the departmental expenditure limits in the last four years. [35397]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has only been in existence since June 2001, so does not have such historical information. It is forecast that budgets will be fully utilised during the current financial year.

  Public Bodies (Resources)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what resources were made available to the(a) Disability Rights Commission, (b) Equal Opportunities Commission and (c) Commission for Racial Equality in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [33941]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of the funding, staffing and expenditure of public bodies, and the remuneration of board members, are set out in the annual publication "Public Bodies".

  Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" and "Public Bodies 2000" are available in the Libraries of the House. "Public Bodies 2001" will be published shortly. The Disability Rights Commission was established on 25 April 2000.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the 2001 pre-Budget report, if he will estimate the distribution by household income quintile of the additional expenditure arising from the introduction of the state pension credit. [31283]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The information requested is in the table.

  Proportion of additional expenditure arising form the introduction of the State Pension Credit by household income quintile

  Percentage

  Household income quintile

  Proportion of additional expenditure from State Pension Credit (after housing costs quintiles)

  Proportion of additional expenditure from State Pension Credit (before housing costs quintiles)

  Lowest

  30

  35

  2

  48

  43

  3

  16

  15

  4

  5

  5

  Highest

  1

  0

  All

  100

  100

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  2. The largest proportion of expenditure goes to households in the second quintile because there are more pensioner benefit units in the second household income quintile.

  Source:

  DWP Policy Simulation Model 2001–02 based on 1999–2000 Family Resources Survey.
  251W
  Pension credit will help tackle poverty among today's pensioners, without discouraging future pensioners from saving. It will provide a decent income in retirement and a reward for those who have saved.

  For the first time, we will reward savings, ensuring those who have worked hard to save modest amounts, who are more likely to be in the second quintile, will gain from having done so.

  Savings Credit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if pensioners' earnings will qualify for the savings credit. [30397]

  Mr. McCartney
  Our intention is to ensure pensioners are rewarded for their effort. We are continuing to consider the treatment of earnings in pension credit.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve uptake of stakeholder pensions. [31841]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: Stakeholder pension sales of over 600,000 in the first nine months on the market are a very encouraging start. In addition, figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) show 312,096 employers had designated stakeholder pension schemes for their staff by the end of December 2001.

  The sales of stakeholder pension have had a wider impact, ABI figures show increased new pension sales of 9 per cent. for the quarter July-September 2001 amounting to £2.8 billion. Regular premium pension business rose by 50 per cent. to £584 million on the same period last year, and new single premium pension policies rose by 2 per cent. to £2.2 billion.

  We are also working to provide information to help people make informed decisions about saving for their retirement. We have already greatly improved the general pension information available by actively promoting our series of pension education guides. In addition, we are working in partnership with employers and pension providers to introduce new pension forecasts giving both state and private pension details.

  Benefits
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time taken to process a new claim for the(a) working families tax credit and (b) jobseeker's allowance was in the last six months. [32469]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For the six months ending 31 December 2001 the average time taken to process a working families tax credit application was 15.2 working days and the average time taken to process a claim to jobseeker's allowance was 9.7 working days.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform the regulations that govern the arrangements for electing trustees to the boards of occupational pension schemes. [32619]
  252W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: Changes to the Member-nominated Trustee and Director requirements were introduced in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. We have been working on a package of regulations that would give effect to the changes, but need to ensure that they are consistent with the findings of the review of private pensions legislation that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 26 September.

  We have, therefore, decided to wait until the review team reports in July, and we have had time to consider their findings.

  We shortly will be consulting on draft regulations that will allow schemes to continue with their present arrangements for the time being.

  Industrial Action (Jobcentre Plus)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many members of staff at the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service took part in the recent industrial action; and what steps he is taking to resolve the dispute. [32871]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: On average 23,635 members of staff, out of a total of 100,000 across the Benefits Agency and Employment Service, took part in industrial action on 28 and 29 January 2002. This represents approximately one quarter of the combined total of staff in the two agencies. The figures on strike were down from the December action when an average of 27,538 members of staff took part.

  To date, more than 60 hours of negotiations (spanning 17 meetings) have taken place with the PCS union in an attempt to settle the current safety dispute. A set of proposals aimed at resolving the dispute was put to the union on 17 October. Despite the recommendation of the union's negotiators, these proposals were rejected by the PCS National Executive Committee by a small margin.

  The PCS tabled its own proposals on which the dispute might be settled in December. The PCS proposals were considered carefully and two meetings were held with the union. However, the proposals ran contrary to the Government's policy that Jobcentre Plus should be delivered in a predominantly unscreened environment. The delivery of a personalised, customer-focused service in a predominantly unscreened environment, supported by enhanced security measures, is central to the new Jobcentre Plus service.

  The proposals on offer last October, save for those that have been overtaken by time, remain on the table. These include details of which services are appropriate for dealing from screened areas, revised risk assessments, enhanced job specifications for security guards, and a review, involving the PCS, of the operation of the Pathfinders. The proposals continue to offer a basis for a negotiated settlement to the dispute.

  Code of Practice (Disability Rights)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Disability Rights Commission's revised Code of Practice on rights of access to goods, services, facilities and premises will come into force. [36267]

  Maria Eagle
  The revised Code of Practice on rights of access to goods, services, facilities and premises will come into force on 27 May 2002 following the making of an Order. It will be an invaluable guide for service providers in helping them understand the new duties and will enable them to plan now to ensure that physical barriers for disabled people can be overcome from 2004.

  Minimum Incomes
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidelines on the minimum incomes for healthy living for(a) pregnant women, (b) families,(c) single adults and (d) pensioners (i) before and (ii) after rent and council tax his Department (A) takes into account and (B) provides to other Government departments when decisions are being made about the levels of (1) council tax, (2) income tax, (3) housing and council tax benefits, (4) income support and jobseeker's allowance, (5) working families tax credit and (6) the minimum wage. [34881]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The levels of social security benefits are reviewed each year and approved by Parliament. A range of factors is considered when reviewing benefit levels. The Department does not produce guidelines on minimum incomes.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the value of(a) expenditure (i) in cash terms and (ii) in current prices and

  Cash terms

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Retirement pensions

  26,740

  28,220

  28,780

  30,000

  32,025

  33,585

  Winter fuel payments

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  190

  Means-tested benefits for pensioners1

  7,315

  8,100

  8,370

  8,550

  8,635

  8,650

  All other benefits for pensioners2

  4,770

  5,455

  5,680

  6,030

  6,325

  6,370

  Concessionary TV licences

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  38,830

  41,770

  42,830

  44,580

  46,985

  48,795

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Retirement pensions

  35,605

  37,800

  38,825

  42,035

  44,355

  46,450

  Winter fuel payments

  195

  910

  1,680

  1,700

  1,700

  1,720

  Means-tested benefits for pensioners1

  8,605

  8,980

  9,520

  10,410

  10,430

  11,630

  All other benefits for pensioners2

  6,425

  6,430

  6,760

  7,005

  7,160

  7,435

  Concessionary TV licences

  0

  0

  320

  345

  365

  380

  Total

  50,825

  54,125

  57,105

  61,495

  64,015

  67,610

  254W
  (b) expenditure as a share of GDP on income support for the over-60s for 1992–93 and each succeeding year to the end of the public expenditure planning period. [35289]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure income support for the elderly/minimum income guarantee

  £ million

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Percentage of GDP

  1992–93

  3,728

  4,649

  0.6

  1993–94

  3,939

  4,794

  0.6

  1994–95

  3,969

  4,767

  0.6

  1995–96

  3,888

  4,540

  0.5

  1996–97

  3,815

  4,318

  0.5

  1997–98

  3,773

  4,143

  0.5

  1998–99

  3,619

  3,866

  0.4

  1999–2000

  3,781

  3,943

  0.4

  2000–01

  4,067

  4,169

  0.4

  2001–02

  4,532

  4,532

  0.5

  2002–03

  4,329

  4,223

  0.4

  2003–04

  5,176

  4,927

  0.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures are consistent with those published in the pre-Budget report 2000

  2. Figures for 2003–04 include expenditure on Pension Credit

  Pensioners Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the value of expenditure(a) in cash terms, (b) in current prices and (c) as a share of GDP on (i) retirement pensions, (ii) winter fuel payments, (iii) means-tested benefits for pensioners, (iv) all other benefits for pensioners and (v) free TV licences for 1992–93 and each succeeding year to the end of the public expenditure planning period. [35290]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the tables:
  255W

  Real terms

  £ million 2001–02 prices

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Retirement pensions

  33,345

  34,340

  34,565

  35,030

  36,250

  36,880

  Winter fuel payments

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  210

  Means-tested benefits for pensioners1

  9,075

  9,805

  10,015

  9,925

  9,730

  9,475

  All other benefits for pensioners2

  6,000

  6,685

  6,860

  7,100

  7,205

  7,015

  Concessionary TV licences

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  48,420

  50,835

  51,440

  52,055

  53,185

  53,585

  £ million 2001–02 prices

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Retirement pensions

  38,035

  39,430

  39,795

  42,035

  43,270

  44,210

  Winter fuel payments

  210

  950

  1,725

  1,700

  1,660

  1,635

  Means-tested benefits for pensioners1

  9,165

  9,345

  9,730

  10,375

  10,140

  11,035

  All other benefits for pensioners2

  6,885

  6,730

  6,960

  7,035

  7,025

  7,110

  Concessionary TV licences

  0

  0

  330

  345

  355

  360

  Total

  54,295

  56,455

  58,535

  61,495

  62,455

  64,355

  1 Figures for mean-tested benefits for the pensioner group include payments made to those aged 60 to 65.

  2 'All other benefits for pensioners' includes payments of disability and bereavement benefits and Christmas bonus to those of pension age.

  Notes:

  1. Amounts are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2. Totals may not appear to sum due to rounding.

  Percentage of GDP

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Retirement pensions

  4.3

  4.3

  4.2

  4.1

  4.1

  4.1

  Winter fuel payments

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Means-tested benefits for pensioners

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  All other benefits for pensioners

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  Concessionary TV licences

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  6.3

  6.4

  6.2

  6.1

  6.1

  5.9

  Percentage of GDP

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Retirement pensions

  4.1

  4.1

  4.1

  4.2

  4.2

  4.2

  Winter fuel payments

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Means-tested benefits for pensioners

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.1

  All other benefits for pensioners

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  Concessionary TV licences

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  5.9

  5.9

  6.0

  6.2

  6.1

  6.2

  1 Less than 0.1 per cent.

  Pensioners Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners receiving one or more means-tested benefit have a weekly income of(a) up to £100, (b) £101 to £120, (c) £121 to £140, (d) £140 to £160, (e) £160 to £180, (f) £180 to £200, (g) £200 to £220, (h) £220 to £240 per week, (i) £240 to £260, (j) £260 to £280, (k) £280 to £300 and (l) over £300 per week. [35845]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table:

  Number of pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits by weekly income band: Great Britain, May 2000

  Number

  Total number of pensioners

  3,250,000

  Up to £100 weekly income

  480,000

  Between £100 and £119.99 weekly income

  220,000

  Between £120 and £139.99 weekly income

  630,000

  Between £140 and £159.99 weekly income

  540,000

  256W

  Number of pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits by weekly income band: Great Britain, May 2000

  Number

  Between £160 and £179.99 weekly income

  390,000

  Between £180 and £199.99 weekly income

  280,000

  Between £200 and £219.99 weekly income

  220,000

  Between £220 and £239.99 weekly income

  190,000

  Between £240 and £259.99 weekly income

  110,000

  Between £260 and £279.99 weekly income

  70,000

  Between £280 and £299.99 weekly income

  30,000

  £300 and over weekly income

  80,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. Due to the estimation procedure to produce the figures, they have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  4. Pensioners are defined as a benefit unit where either the claimant and/or the partner are aged 60 and over.

  257W

  5. Overlaps between jobseeker's allowance, minimum income guarantee, housing benefit and council tax benefit have been removed to calculate the total number of benefit units.

  6. Includes income declared for the assessment of means-tested benefits (including disregarded income).

  Sources:

  1. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2000.

  2. Income support 5 per cent. Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 2000.

  3. Jobseeker's allowance 5 per cent. Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 2000.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours List
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons(a) knighted (or equivalent) and (b) admitted to each rank of the orders of chivalry in the recent New Year's honours list were honoured for their contribution as (i) employees of Her Majesty's Government or of a Government-sponsored organisation, (ii) employees of local government or of a local government-sponsored organisation, (iii) private sector employees, (iv) voluntary sector employees, (v) health service employees, (vi) staff of schools and (vii) volunteers. [30023]

  The Prime Minister
  The information available is as follows:

  (i) Five State Servants were honoured at Knight/Dame level in the new year honours list—2002, 30 at CB, CMG or CBE, 38 at OBE and 64 at MBE. It is not possible to readily identify employees of Government sponsored organisations.

  (ii) Among local government employees, including police officers and fire fighters, there were one Knighthood, four CBEs, six OBEs and 28 MBEs. Figures for people employed by local government sponsored organisations cannot be readily identified.

  (iii) It is not possible to identify from the names on the list those people who are employed in the private sector, many of whom will have been honoured because of what they have done outside their place of employment.

  (iv) The list does not distinguish between paid and unpaid workers in the voluntary sector. Overall, people from the voluntary sector accounted for almost half of those on the list.

  (v) For NHS employees there were two awards at Knight/Dame, four at CBE, 16 at OBE and 24 at MBE. The list also recognised the contribution made by many other people in the health sector, such as members of the Red Cross and the St. John's Ambulance Brigade.

  (vi) Two members of school staff were honoured at Knight/Dame, three at CBE, 11 at OBE and 25 at MBE. There were also a significant number of awards elsewhere in the educational field, for example to people involved in further and higher education and vocational training.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons in each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland were(a) knighted or equivalent and (b) admitted to each rank of the orders of chivalry in each Honours List since May 1997. [34124]

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held in the format requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the following table shows the number of awards made on my recommendation in each county in Northern Ireland since June 1999.
  258W

  Numbers of Honours recipients in each county

  County

  KCB

  DBE

  Kt

  CB

  CBE

  OBE

  MBE

  Antrim (including Belfast)

  Birthday 1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  16

  New year 2000

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  13

  43

  Birthday 2000

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  7

  24

  New year 2001

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  15

  18

  Birthday 2001

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  6

  22

  New year 2002

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  8

  20

  Armagh

  Birthday 1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  New year 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Birthday 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  New year 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Birthday 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  New year 2002

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Down

  Birthday 1999

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  5

  13

  New year 2000

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  6

  12

  Birthday 2000

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  8

  New year 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  13

  Birthday 2001

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  11

  New year 2002

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  10

  Fermanagh

  Birthday 1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  New year 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Birthday 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  New year 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Birthday 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  New year 2002

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Londonderry

  Birthday 1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  New year 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Birthday 2000

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  New year 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Birthday 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  New year 2002

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  6

  Tyrone

  Birthday 1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  New year 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Birthday 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  New year 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Birthday 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  New year 2002

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Suez Emergency 1951–54
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the Chairman of the Honours and Decorations Committee to conclude his review of the 1951 to 1954 Suez Emergency and its recognition by way of a General Service Medal. [31850]

  The Prime Minister
  The Committee on the Grants of Honours, Decorations and Medals is aware of the past history of the case and of the representations currently being made for a medal. It is considering these representations very carefully.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of his office and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32815]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 59–60W.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the policy of his Office 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; [33474]

  (2) 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; [33446]

  (3) what his estimate is of the average cost of processing each information request under the Data Protection Act 1998; [33441]

  (4) what administration fees are charged by his Office for information requests made under the Data Protection Act 1998; [33458]

  (5) what percentage of responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 No. 10 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; [33465]

  (6) how many requests the Department has received under the Data Protection Act 1998 for (a) electronically held information and (b) paper documentation; [33579]

  (7) how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 his Office has completed (a) within 40 days of receipt of the £10 administration fee, (b) between 40 and 60 days of and (c) over 60 days after receiving the administration fee; [33436]

  (8) 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; [33572]

  (9) 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; [33451]

  (10) what his 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; [33479]

  (11) how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 have been completed (a) within 40 days, (b) between 40 and 60 days and (c) over 60 days after receiving the original letter; and how many are still outstanding; [33567]

  The Prime Minister
  Our policy is to respond to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 as quickly and as accurately as possible and in accordance with the data protection principles.

  For the purposes of the Act the Prime Minister's Office forms part of the Cabinet Office. The responsibility for co-ordinating responses to requests for information under the Act falls to the Cabinet Office Openness Unit. They
  260W
  arrange searches for personal data from relevant parts of the Department in accordance with the provisions of the Act and collate and send the responses.

  The Act requires that a response be sent to anyone seeking information under the Act within 40 calendar days of sufficient information being received to verify the identity of the applicant and the location of the information being sought. The Cabinet Office procedures for handling requests for information under the Act are designed to ensure that wherever possible responses are sent within 40 days. Although the Act permits an administration fee of up to £10 to be charged, it is not currently the Cabinet Office policy to levy such a fee.

  Since 1 March 2000, when the Act came into force, the Cabinet Office has responded to 24 requests for information within 40 days (83 per cent.), three between 40 and 60 days (10 per cent.) and two over 60 days (7 per cent.), with the longest being 86 days. This excludes those cases where the request was redirected to another Department, or the Cabinet Office has asked for further information from the applicant and no response was received. At present the Cabinet Office has four requests outstanding, one of which was received over 40 days ago.

  Those making requests for information under the Act do not usually distinguish between the format in which the personal data are held when submitting a request. The time and effort required to process a request under the Act varies considerably depending on the nature and complexity of the request and no estimate is available of the average cost.

  Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the publications issued by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34193]

  >The Prime Minister
  My office published three Government annual reports. For the costs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 206W.

  All three reports were laid before Parliament. They were published through the Stationary Office, and are available on the internet. The 1998–99 and 1999–2000 reports were also available through Tesco and W. H. Smith.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [34219]

  The Prime Minister
  In respect of my Office, none for the last four financial years.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 26W, which said that no items valued at more than £50 had been stolen or lost from my office in the last four financial years.

  African Visit
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what sales of UK-produced defence equipment he proposes to promote during his forthcoming visit to African countries; and if he will make a statement. [34470]

  The Prime Minister
  None. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 11 February 2002.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the dates of meetings that(a) special advisers and (b) Members of the Performance and Innovation Unit have had since 7 June 2001 with representatives of Seeboard; and if he will make a statement; [34060]

  (2) if he will list the dates of meetings that (a) his special advisers and (b) members of the Performance and Innovation Unit have had since 1 January 1999 with representatives of Global Crossing; and if he will make a statement; [34054]

  (3) if he will place the records kept of contacts between his special advisers and the media concerning the Performance and Innovation Unit energy review in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [33975]

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

  Nigeria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria regarding ethnic violence in Lagos. [35377]

  The Prime Minister
  I expressed my concern and sympathy to President Obasanjo when I saw him on 7 February. We support the Nigerian Government in their efforts to reduce the long-standing ethnic and religious tensions which underlie this and several other outbreaks of violence in recent months. The UK sponsors a number of projects aimed at reconciliation between different ethnic and religious groups in Nigeria.

  UN Convention on Children's Rights
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's report on the Implementation of the UN Convention on Children's Rights to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child; and for what reason. [35235]

  The Prime Minister
  The Children and Young People's Unit, reporting to the Minister for Children and Young People at the Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will be responsible for co-ordinating the Government's next report on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a cross-departmental unit responsible for ensuring the coherence of the Government's policies for children and young people. It is therefore best placed to co-ordinate the Government's report.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in each of the last four years. [27902]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 406W.

  In DEFRA we are unable to easily identify taxi fares as a separate item. The coding used to identify transactions groups travel by taxi with other forms of public transport (eg buses and underground), and to provide the information requested would incur disproportionate costs.

  Fuel Poverty
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of fuel poverty in the ethnic minority communities; and if she will commission a study. [33597]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  Estimates suggest that the incidence of fuel poverty in England varies according to the ethnic group of the head of household. The 1996 English House Condition Survey estimated that the incidence of fuel poverty among white households was broadly similar to the average for all households in England in 1996 of about 22 per cent. The incidence of fuel poverty among black households was about 27 per cent. with that among Asian households estimated to be about 19 per cent.

  The 2001 English House Condition Survey will update this information and the information on the extent of fuel poverty in England generally.

  Fuel poverty is a devolved matter and therefore it is for the respective Assemblies and Parliament to report on the situation in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many acres of Grades 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land(a) in England and Wales and (b) in the Buckingham constituency were lost to development in each year since 1997. [32182]

  Mr. Morley
  The area of particular grades of agricultural land lost to development in England and Wales is not monitored on a systematic basis, partly because not all agricultural land has been surveyed by grade.

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33199]
  263W
  Mr. Morley
  One member of staff (formerly of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions) was seconded to Shell in September 2000.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 848W, when the consolidated list concerning (a) the Rural White Paper and (b) other departmental indicators will be placed in the Library. [35224]

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 847W, when the consolidated list on the Rural White Paper's headline indicators will be placed in the Library. [35225]

  Alun Michael
  The consolidated list of research into Rural White Paper headline indicators has been sent to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  LGC
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 240W, on genotype test errors, what plans she has to review the work carried out by LGC on the potential contamination of sheep brains with bovine material in October 2001. [33775]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: No errors were made by LGC in the tests of sheep and cow brains used for BSE research. An error had previously been reported on an entirely different test on sheep blood samples which used a robotic sampling system. The cross-checking genetic test of the brains in the flawed IAH experiment did not use this robotic system and was performed at a different laboratory at the LGC. LGC have performed an internal audit of this and are satisfied that the sheep and cow brains samples were correctly handled and that the results can be traced back to the correct samples.

  Ashmoor Pit, Petrockstowe
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the retrospective Environmental Impact Assessment of the Ashmoor Pit, Petrockstowe will be published. [R] [35472]

  Mr. Morley
  The draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been circulated for comment and Devon county council, among others, has offered some constructive comments. The future of the Ashmoor pit is currently being discussed with local interests and the EIA will be prepared for publication upon conclusion of those discussions.

  Thames Flood Barrier
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the number of years of protection 264W
  afforded to London by the Thames Flood Barrier; when these estimates were made; and when they were last reviewed. [32893]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The Thames Barrier is the largest component of the complex system of gates, walls and embankments which form the tidal defences to London and the Thames Estuary. The Barrier is a robust and flexible installation with a design based on rates of sea level rise predicted in the 1970s which were higher than those currently anticipated. It provides London with a high level of protection from tidal flooding and with normal care and maintenance should continue to do so until at least the latter half of this century. Even then, although the Barrier may need to be closed more frequently, it will continue to fulfil its primary function. This conclusion was confirmed in the Environment Agency's latest annual review in November 2001.

  The Environment Agency is currently developing its Thames tidal defence strategy for the next one hundred years, with several studies already in progress.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out for each Civil Service grade within her Department the(a) total number of staff employed and (b) the number aged (i) 16 to 25, (ii) 26 to 35, (iii) 36 to 45, (iv) 46 to 60 and (v) over the age of 60 years. [32885]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The number of permanent and casual staff employed in the Department for Environment, Food and rural Affairs by grade equivalent and by age band is set out in the table. These figures exclude staff in the Department' executive agencies.

  Age

  Grade

  16–25

  26–35

  36–45

  46–60

  Over 60

  Total

  SCS

  0

  1

  36

  103

  2

  142

  Grade 6

  0

  2

  20

  83

  1

  106

  Grade 7

  0

  55

  145

  247

  2

  449

  SEO

  3

  116

  298

  342

  8

  767

  HEO

  37

  302

  430

  331

  8

  1,108

  EO

  285

  708

  552

  405

  13

  1,963

  AO

  640

  692

  510

  601

  69

  2,512

  AA

  336

  203

  202

  312

  48

  1,101

  Total

  1,301

  2,079

  2,193

  2,424

  151

  8,148

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the letter of 18 November 2001 from Ms Anne Parker concerning the implementation of the recommendations of Task Force for the Hills; [28283]

  (2) when the Director of the Government Office for the north west will reply to the letter of 18 November from Ms Anne Parker concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force for the Hills. [28281]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: A response was sent to Ms Anne Parker on 6 February 2002.
  265W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) parliamentary questions, (b) letters and (c) other representations she has received from hon. Members regarding delays in responding to correspondence in 2001–02. [32558]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: At 31 January 2002, the Department had received 83 parliamentary questions from hon. Members regarding delays in responding to correspondence in this session.

  Our correspondence database can not easily identify those letters received from hon. Members regarding delays in responding to their correspondence. Since the beginning of this Session the Department has received a total of 7,029 letters from hon. Members and to provide the information requested would incur disproportionate costs.

  We have no records of other representations received.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff(a) are employed examining meat imports into the United Kingdom; and (b) were so employed in each of the last six years. [32196]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: All products of animal origin imported from third countries into the UK must enter at designated UK Border

  Rejected consignments of imported meat and meat products from January 1997 to June 2001

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  January to June 2001

  Total by country

  Argentina

  2

  3

  2

  17

  4

  28

  Australia

  1

  3

  10

  1

  1

  16

  Bangladesh

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  5

  Barbados

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Belarus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Botswana

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Brazil

  0

  7

  8

  13

  12

  40

  Brunei

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Cameroon

  4

  1

  4

  1

  0

  10

  Canada

  3

  1

  3

  3

  1

  11

  Chile

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  China

  0

  1

  1

  4

  7

  13

  Colombia

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Congo

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Croatia

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Cyprus

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Egypt

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  Ethiopia

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  Estonia

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Gambia

  1

  4

  3

  2

  11

  21

  Ghana

  27

  9

  7

  7

  8

  58

  Grenada

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Guinea

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Guyana

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Honduras

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hong Kong

  3

  2

  5

  5

  3

  18

  Hungary

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  India

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  Indonesia

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Israel

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Ivory Coast

  0

  0

  5

  3

  1

  9

  Japan

  5

  6

  6

  6

  1

  24

  Jordan

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Kenya

  1

  3

  3

  0

  1

  8

  Korea

  4

  1

  4

  1

  2

  12

  Kuwait

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  266W
  Inspection Posts (BIPs) where they are subject to veterinary inspections. The inspection services at the BIP are the responsibility of the local authority or port health authority and it is for the appropriate local authority to deploy inspection staff at the BIP in response to the volume and nature of products imported through the BIP. For this reason the exact number of inspectors engaged in checking imports can vary from day-to-day. Most of these staff also undertake a range of other duties. As at November 2001 the total number of local authority staff employed at BIPs was 196 comprising 97 Environmental Health Officers, 48 Official Veterinary Surgeons and 51 support staff. Figures are not available for previous years.

  HM Customs officers also carry out checks for the presence of illegally imported meat and other animal products in passengers' luggage. In addition, State Veterinary Service staff are also empowered to deal with illegally imported animal products when they are found.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many consignments of imported meat products have been rejected on inspection, and from which countries they originated, in each of the last five years. [33070]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The table provided covers rejected consignments of red meat and red meat products from third countries from January 1997 to June 2001. Information is not yet available for the second half of 2001. The total number of consignments rejected is 119 in 1997, 140 in 1998, 175 in 1999, 196 in 2000 and 149 in the first six months of 2001.
  267W

  Rejected consignments of imported meat and meat products from January 1997 to June 2001

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  January to June 2001

  Total by country

  Lebanon

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Liberia

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Liechtenstein

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Malawi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Malaysia

  5

  8

  6

  5

  1

  25

  Malta

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Mauritius

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Mexico

  0

  1

  0

  0

  7

  8

  Morocco

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Namibia

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Nepal

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  New Zealand

  1

  4

  5

  5

  2

  17

  Nigeria

  9

  16

  12

  13

  9

  59

  Oman

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Pakistan

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Philippines

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  Poland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Qatar

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  4

  Russia

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  3

  1

  2

  0

  3

  9

  Seychelles

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Sierra Leone

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Singapore

  2

  7

  19

  1

  1

  30

  South Africa

  5

  10

  2

  3

  1

  21

  Sri Lanka

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  St. Lucia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  St. Vincent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Switzerland

  0

  1

  4

  2

  0

  7

  Syria

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Taiwan

  0

  1

  1

  3

  4

  9

  Thailand

  3

  1

  7

  4

  3

  18

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Tunisia

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Turkey

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  3

  United Arab Emirates

  3

  9

  9

  5

  5

  31

  United States of America

  17

  22

  24

  60

  38

  161

  Uruguay

  0

  0

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Vietnam

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Yemen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Zambia

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Zaire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Zimbabwe

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  4

  Total by year

  119

  140

  175

  196

  149

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve the controls on the import and labelling of meat. [33931]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Since April last year we have taken a range of initiatives aimed at improving our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports. These include better publicity and more effective intelligence gathering. These initiatives have been co-ordinated by officials in DEFRA, but involve other Departments such as HM Customs and Excise and the Food Standards Agency, and the local authorities who are responsible for controls at ports and airports.

  The Food Standards Agency is pressing for changes to EU labelling rules to require country of origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly meat products. It is also pressing for changes that would prevent misleading
  268W
  labelling by restricting the use of terms like "produce of…"to those foods where the main ingredients come from, and production processes occur in, the named place or country.

  Farm Produce
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of farm gate prices of farm produce are less than the cost of production. [28939]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The cost of production and the farm gate price of any particular commodity vary from producer to producer and over time. It is not possible therefore to determine a fixed proportion of the farm gate price that is attributable to the cost of production. At the whole farm level, the incidence of selling at below the cost of production is indicated by data from the Farm Business Survey. They show the incidence of negative farm incomes, where total costs

  269W
  exceed total output from the farm. In 1999–2000, 36 per cent. of farms in the Farm Business Survey in England had negative net farm incomes.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why the sheep annual premium scheme application forms were changed between 2001 and 2002; how many farmers have made mistakes as a result of these changes; and whether farmers have been able to appeal against decisions based on incorrectly completed forms. [33000]

  Mr. Morley
  The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme (SAPS) application forms are reviewed annually to take account of any regulatory changes, and to take account of comments from producers and to see if there is any way they can be simplified. There have been no major changes from the 2001, to the 2002 forms (such as the addition or deletion of questions), however minor amendments were made to the format and wording of some questions, to assist the industry. For the 2001 scheme there were approximately 30,000 SAPS claimants, each received a questionnaire in the literature pack and was invited to comment on the scheme literature. Around 20 per cent. of applicants took the opportunity to comment, and we used these comments when drafting the 2002 scheme literature, before sending the drafts out for industry consultation over the summer. As in the past the exercise will be repeated this year, although the 2003 scheme literature should change considerably, following the reform of the Sheepmeat regime, agreed in Brussels in December 2001. The reforms have simplified the scheme, and will give us the opportunity to thoroughly review the scheme literature (which has changed only gradually since 1992).

  The application window for the 2002 scheme has just closed, as a result we will not know for some time (until the claims are processed in spring) how many producers have made errors on their application forms. Staff undertake an initial check of the application forms on receipt, and any obvious errors are brought to the attention of claimants, who then have the opportunity to amend their forms, until the extended deadline for the receipt of claims on 1 March 2002. In the case of errors discovered after 1 March, while the Commission recognise the concept of 'obvious errors' in relation to the completion of application forms, it does so in a very restrictive manner. Thus, while we can accept simple cases of clerical error (eg transcription of numbers; omission and inconsistencies) we cannot extend this approach to cover errors of substance.

  Producers who make an error on their claim form which subsequently affects their payment are able to appeal to the office handling their claim. They may also write to the Rural Payments Agency's Customers Relations Manager, and are of course free to write to their MP, who in turn may refer their case to the relevant Minister, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Farmers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by administrative region in England and Wales the amounts 270W
  paid to farmers in each of the last five years for (a) each CAP scheme and (b) UK schemes for which she is responsible. [27848]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Pursuant to the right hon. Member's similar question answered on 11 January 2002, Official Report, column 1040W, to which I was only able to provide a holding answer, the amounts paid for CAP schemes in England, for the periods in question are now available in the Library of the House.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage participation by her Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33551]

  Mr. Morley
  Campaigns, such as the annual Fair Trade Fortnight organised by the Fair Trade Foundation, help to raise consumer awareness of development issues in international trade as well as highlighting ways in which consumers can act to make a difference. The Department for International Development is providing £120,000 to the Fair Trade Foundation over three years (2001–03) in support of its efforts to target new groups through its annual Fair Trade Fortnight campaigns, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will be attending the launch of this year's campaign on 4 March 2002.

  Exmoor National Park
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide funds to the Exmoor national park to help with the damage caused by foot and mouth disease. [34129]

  Alun Michael
  For the coming financial year Exmoor national park will receive £2.93 million from Government, an increase of 13.6 per cent. on the current financial year. Considerable support has been given to rural communities to aid recovery following foot and mouth disease, including an £80 million business recovery fund and other forms of financial support which will have helped many businesses within national parks.

  We are providing extra resources to all the national park authorities in England to help with the aftermath of the foot and mouth epidemic. We have already provided funds this year through the Countryside Agency to reopen rights of way in affected areas, including Exmoor.

  We are confident that the resources provided will help the national parks promote a vigorous recovery in the countryside.

  ESA Payments
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the time it takes for Environmentally sensitive areas payments to be made to farmers; and how many farmers are awaiting payment. [34132]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department aims to pay valid claims under the ESA scheme within two months of their receipt. In the most recent payment round, 89 per cent. of claims under ESA management agreements had been authorised
  271W
  for payment by 31 January 2002. On that date, 702 claims were awaiting authorisation for payment and these should be processed shortly.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her plans for the provision of ESA payments. [34131]

  Mr. Morley
  Proposed funding for the ESA scheme is set out in the England Rural Development Programme which covers the period 2000 to 2006. There are now 11,300 agreement holders under the scheme. The Department aims to make annual payments to them within two months of receiving valid claims.

  Departmental Strikes
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days were lost in strike action in her Department(a) in Somerset and Devon and (b) in the UK in 2000–01. [34130]

  Mr. Morley
  There were no days lost through strike action throughout 2000–01 in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (then referred to as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food).

  During 2001–02, days lost due to strike action in the Department were (a) 2895 in offices in the counties of Somerset and Devon, (b) 16,201 in the UK overall.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list her Department's total expenditure by month in the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [32785]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 692W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the(a) Disease Control System Database and (b) Veterinary Laboratory Agency foot and mouth disease case database. [33596]

  Mr. Morley
  Quality assurance and validation processes have been built into the routine procedures for maintaining the accuracy and completeness of both databases. Detailed guidance and training is available to all relevant staff.

  A quality assurance exercise of the data within DCS is currently being carried out and whilst this is ongoing, figures extracted from DCS may be subject to revision as more information becomes available.

  Animal Welfare
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanisms have been put in place on the resumption of the live animal export trade to ensure the protection of the animals from cruelty. [32601]
  272W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government will continue to operate a twin track policy to protect the welfare of animals exported from the UK. We ensure that the rules are met while animals are within our jurisdiction and encourage other EU member states to give enforcement the same high priority. We have raised this with the European Commission and hope to see the point reflected in proposals later this year, to update and improve the current EU rules on the welfare of animals during transport.

  All consignments of animals intended for export are subject to veterinary inspection in the 24 hours before loading. EU rules on health certification were amended in 2001 to include a mandatory assessment of the fitness of the animals for the journey. Consignors must complete a route plan showing how the intended journey will comply with statutory requirements for provision of feed, water and rest and maximum journey times. The pre-export check must be carried out at the farm of origin or at an approved assembly centre.

  Flooding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to increase the amount spent on flood defences in 2003–04 to the levels necessary to meet her Department's standards of service. [33901]

  Mr. Morley
  Funding for the Department's programme for investing in flood warning arrangements and flood and coastal defences is increasing from pound;66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04. Funding for future years will be considered in the spending review process.

  I have encouraged operating authorities to identify priority sites where flood and coastal erosion risk can be reduced and to submit plans so that available funds will be fully utilised to reduce that risk.

  The Department's indicative standards of protection for flood and coastal defence schemes are provided as an aid to operating authorities to help in establishing the range of options to be considered. They do not represent any entitlement to protection or a minimum level to be achieved. The economic criteria for appraising schemes are that (a) the benefits outweigh the costs and (b) the most economically efficient option, commensurate with achieving an appropriate level of protection, is identified.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to cap premiums imposed by insurance companies on homeowners in high-risk flood areas. [33900]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not intervene in price-setting by insurance companies. It is for the commercial judgment of individual insurance companies to set premiums according to their assessment of risk. We and the Environment Agency are working with the insurance industry so that companies have full information on the action taken to reduce flood risk so as to allow informed decisions. It remains the mutual aim of the Government and the insurance industry to ensure that affordable flood cover is available as widely as possible.

  Agricultural Shows
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what agricultural shows licences farmers need to apply for; and what are the regulations governing animals at such shows. [33934]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Agricultural shows are very important to rural communities and we hope that they will be able to go ahead later this year subject to biosecurity conditions. On 5 February, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Lord Whitty of Camberwell announced details of the rules on animal movements that will operate on an interim basis during 2002. Further information on these new arrangements, including outline rules for movements to and from shows, have been made available in the Library of the House and posted on the DEFRA website at www.defraweb/footandmouth/movements/mainindex.htm. We hope to publish further details specifically on the conditions that show organisers will need to meet by the end of the month.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many agricultural shows were cancelled as a consequence of the outbreak of foot and mouth; and how many received financial compensation. [34107]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The Department does not hold this information but according to the Association of Agricultural and Show Organisations, in excess of 309 shows are normally held each year and that last year, the vast majority of these were cancelled because of foot and mouth disease.

  There is no statutory compensation for the cancellation of a show due to foot and mouth restrictions.

  Sugar Beet
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from sugar beet farmers about the price of the crop in 2001–02; and what action she has taken as a result. [33933]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The basic price for sugar beet is determined by the relevant Common Agricultural Policy regime. This has kept EU white sugar prices at roughly double world levels for many years. Although the United Kingdom pressed for price reductions in last year's negotiations on renewal of the regime, the levels set by the Agriculture Council in Regulation 1260/01 for the period to 2006 remain broadly unchanged from the previous regime.

  Sugar beet farmers have made no specific representations about price for 2001–02, though they have expressed concern about the sterling/euro exchange rate and about certain difficulties in the harvesting and processing of this year's crop.

  Animal Movements
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the 20-day standstill rule has been amended to apply to animals that have been moved onto the farm and are not already on the farm itself. [33935]
  274W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Veterinary advice is that for biosecurity reasons, the 20-day standstill rule should continue to apply to holdings rather than individual animals although this is kept under review.

  A number of exceptions to this rule are being permitted under the livestock movement regime being introduced on 11 February. Any future changes will need to ensure the continued segregation of incoming animals from the rest of the livestock in order to maintain biosecurity.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information technology difficulties have been identified in the operations of the Rural Payments Agency. [34106]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: We have had no insurmountable problems with IT in the run up to and since the formal launch of the RPA in October, though it is true that we have had some of the difficulties that one must expect when bringing two organisations together. In very brief summary these were:
  the need to link two networks and e-mail systems in a way which would look seamless to the staff;
  the need to connect systems based on slightly differing technologies, inherited from MAFF and IB, and to connect each group of people to the other's systems and data;
  maintaining old technology in the fact of increasing demand at fewer sites;
  accommodating action to deal with foot and mouth at the same time as building the new agency.

  However, all of these have been dealt with by some upgrades, and by a good co-operative effort between RPA's staff and those of DEFRA.

  Also, action is in hand to provide a unified infrastructural service for the RPA which will supersede the tactical solutions we employed in the short term. Apart from the need to develop a new, more resilient platform for RPA's set of existing operational systems, a key objective is to support a major procurement for the strategic replacement of all the operational claims management systems by the end of 2004.

  Rhizomania
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on farming of the removal of protected zone status for rhizomania. [34105]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: Removal of protected zone status for rhizomania should have little impact on the development of the disease for the next five to ten years. Most outbreaks that appear in that time will result from infection which is already present in the soil. The development of the disease thereafter will depend on the actions of growers, contractors and processors, in particular in limiting the movement of soil, the principal means by which the disease is spread. Growers with known outbreaks will benefit from the lifting of statutory restrictions on their farms.

  Livestock Headage Payments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what headage payments are available to(a) beef, (b) dairy, (c) sheep and (d) other livestock farmers; what is the value of each payment (i) in aggregate and (ii) per head; and what are the conditions upon which payments depend. [26000]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The information requested is as follows. For all schemes the conditions upon which payments depend are detailed in the scheme literature which is sent to producers. Copies of this literature will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rat Infestations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated annual cost was to(a) agriculture and (b) the food industry of damage and losses as the result of rat infestations in the last 10 years. [34066]

  Mr. Morley
  The data required to estimate such damage and losses are not currently recorded.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 January, 2002 Official Report, column 769W, on the fishing fleet, if she will make a statement on (a) the total estimated discrepancy in kilowatt of power to be rectified on 1 July 2000 as a result of the declarations received from fishing vessels owners on 1 July 2000, (b) the total amount of kilowatt of power outstanding for which owners still have to acquire additional vessel capacity units and (c) the figures resulting from the above in relation to the totals for each of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea areas. [31456]

  Mr. Morley
  The total engine power discrepancy notified to Fisheries Departments by fishing vessel owners by 1 July 2000 was 50,400kW. As at 31 December 2001 vessel owners had acquired additional vessel capacity units (VCUs) equivalent to approximately 19,800kWs of this discrepancy. This leaves some 30,600kW to be corrected by the purchase of additional VCUs, the deration of engine power or a combination of the two. Vessel owners have until 31 December 2004 to do this. The figures cover the full spectrum of fishing activity. They cannot be broken down by ICES area as British domestic fishing licences authorise fishing in all relevant ICES areas.

  Ear-tagging (Sheep)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the introduction of unique ear-tagging of sheep in improving traceability; and what role the 20 day standstill order has in the overall application of the ear-tagging scheme. [33373]

  Mr. Morley
  Sheep born or moved from their holding of birth since 1 January 2000 have only been required to bear a flock mark on an eartag or tattoo giving details of that holding of birth. It has not been possible to test the effectiveness of individual or unique identification as this has not been required.
  276W
  The 20 day standstill required as part of the current FMD controls is monitored on the basis of batches of sheep moved and not on the identity of individual sheep.

  Poland
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on whether Poland has accepted the terms and conditions of the acquis communautaire for fisheries within the negotiations on accession to the European Union. [33385]

  Mr. Morley
  EU accession negotiations for the Fisheries chapter have been provisionally completed with 10 of the 12 applicant countries. Poland and Malta have yet to conclude negotiations. Both have still to supply the EU with information regarding their preparations for meeting the acquis communautaire and discussion is still underway with the EU on derogations they have requested. It is now expected that the chapter will be concluded in the first half of 2002.

  Fishing Gear
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on who is responsible for the initial authorisation of fishing gear to be used outside the Scottish 12 mile limit. [33384]

  Mr. Morley
  The Scottish Executive is responsible for fisheries management in the Scottish zone of British fisheries limits. This zone extends from the Scottish coast out to the 200 mile limit or to median lines with adjacent countries if that distance is shorter. Fisheries management includes regulation of fishing gear.

  Livestock Movements
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the practical implications of the 20 day standstill order for stock breeding livestock farmers wishing to make applications for movement orders; and when she expects to lift the 20 day standstill order on the movement of livestock. [33372]

  Mr. Morley
  The Interim Regime for Livestock movements, which my noble Friend Lord Whitty announced on 5 February, will retain the 20 day standstill as the default position for movements not specified as exceptions. A significant number of exceptions are now permitted subject to conditions. These relate principally to breeding bulls and pigs, calves, sheep on tack and, as previously, all movements direct to slaughter. These provisions will be kept under review.

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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 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

  277W
  (iii) Northern Ireland, and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category(a). [33679]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being in June 2001. Currently there are over 100 centrally managed IT contracts in place and it is expected that the core Department will spend around £61 million on IT systems and support this year, including an element for internal service provision. This sum excludes a contract relating

  Contract details

  Contractor

  Registered office

  Description

  Type of contract

  Start date

  Lason Information Management Ltd.

  England

  Data capture management services

  Service provision agreement

  August 2000

  Global Crossing

  England

  Wide area data networking services

  Framework

  May 2000

  Compuware Ltd.

  England

  Uniface software licensing and support

  Support agreement

  April 2000

  International Computers Ltd.

  England

  IT supply, maintenance and support services

  Framework

  April 1999

  Sema Group UK Ltd.

  England

  Applications development services

  Framework

  April 1999

  Sherwood International Group Ltd.

  England

  Applications development services

  Framework

  April 1999

  SAS Software Ltd.

  England

  SAS software licences

  Support agreement

  January 1999

  Vodafone Corporate Limited

  England

  Mobile communication services

  Framework

  1998

  Computer Associates

  England

  Network licences

  Support agreement

  March 1988

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

  England

  Consultancy and education services

  Service provision agreement

  May 1997

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

  England

  Gold software support service

  Support agreement

  May 1997

  Fujitsu Siemens Computers Ltd.

  England

  Unidata software licensing and support

  Support agreement

  February 1997

  PC World Business Direct

  England

  Computer supplies/products

  Framework

  1996

  Orion Media Marketing Ltd.

  England

  Computer supplies/products

  Framework

  1996

  Abacus Direct Marketing and Computer Services Ltd.

  England

  Processor controlled keying services

  Service provision agreement

  July 1996

  Siemens Communications Ltd.

  England

  Telephone systems and services

  Framework

  November 1993

  British Telecommunications Plc

  England

  Leased date circuits

  Framework

  May 1990

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Group Lotus (Redundancies)
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement concerning the proposed redundancies at Group Lotus in the South Norfolk constituency; and if she will take steps to safeguard the technical research capacity of Group Lotus. [35283]

  Mr. Wilson
  I regret the announcement made by Group Lotus on 6 February of plans for up to 275 redundancies over the next few months, with the exact numbers to be decided after consultations with staff. However I note that these redundancies represent only 17 per cent. of the total Lotus work force. Recent improvements in manufacturing processes and productivity made by Group Lotus have led to an excess of staff employed in the manufacturing facility and this, together with a short term slowdown in the global market for sports cars, has led to the company's decision.

  I am pleased that the highly efficient Lotus car production at Norfolk of the Lotus Elise and Esprit and the GM/Opel roadster will continue at around 5,000 cars per annum. In the long term this continued commitment by Lotus to manufacture high quality niche sports cars will lead to increased sales and profitability. In addition Lotus Engineering, which is largely unaffected, will continue to provide high quality R&D and engineering consultancy services to an increasing number of automotive manufacturing clients. It is estimated that one in 10 of every cars sold in Europe have an engine developed by Lotus.
  278W
  to the Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network which I understand will be included in the response by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  To identify the location of registered offices for all main contracting parties would incur disproportionate costs, but a survey of the top 16 contracts, in cost terms (see table), has revealed that the registered office is in England in every case.

  The UK's automotive design engineering community, of which Lotus is a leading example, is respected internationally for its capability and excellence. Continued success critically depends on staying at the forefront of technological advance. My Department is already helping the sector maintain this world-class position through support for best practice channelled through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Moreover, direct funding for cutting edge R&D is available through the Foresight Vehicle LINK Programme. Here we are supporting three projects involving Lotus and a number of new Lotus proposals are being considered. The ongoing Foresight Vehicle road-mapping work allows companies such as Lotus to help set the priorities for the next phase of the programme to ensure its continuing relevance to strategic business needs. Furthermore, the Government's draft "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy provides an opportunity for Lotus to help shape thinking over the medium to long term in one of its areas of key competence.

  At European level, my Department has actively supported the inclusion of sustainable surface transport technologies in the EC sixth RTD&D Framework Programme, which is scheduled to be launched later this year. There is an indicative budget of about euro 600 million associated with this sub-theme. As with previous Framework Programmes, of which Lotus has been a beneficiary, the Government will establish a number of dedicated National Contact Points to provide information and guidance to prospective participants.

  Utility Disconnections
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households(a) in England and Wales and (b) in the Buckingham constituency have

  279W
  been disconnected by (i) water companies, (ii) electricity companies and (iii) telecommunications companies in each year since 1992. [32184]

  Mr. Wilson
  The disconnection of domestic properties for non-payment of water bills was abolished by the Water Industry Act 1999 with effect from 1 July 1999. The number of disconnections for England and Wales since 1992 is set out in Table 1.

  Table 1: Number of domestic water disconnections for non-payment in England and Wales

  Number

  1992–93

  18,636

  1993–94

  12,452

  1994–95

  10,047

  1995–96

  5,826

  1996–97

  3,148

  1997–98

  1,907

  1998–99

  1,129

  April-June 1999

  127

  Note:

  Information on water disconnections collected by company

  Source:

  Ofwat

  The number of households in Great Britain that have been disconnected for non-payment by electricity and gas companies in each year from 1992 is given in Table 2.

  Table 2: Number of domestic disconnections for non-payment for gas and electricity in Great Britain1,2

  Gas

  Electricity

  1992

  15,707

  18,018

  1993

  16,068

  3,700

  1994

  16,308

  1,200

  1995

  14,511

  838

  1996

  8,826

  477

  1997

  29,771

  460

  1998

  29,500

  400

  1999

  22,177

  373

  2000

  16,500

  300

  Notes:

  1. Data for 2001 are not yet available

  2. Data for England and Wales are not separately available

  Source:

  Ofgem

  The number of households in the United Kingdom that have been disconnected for non-payment by British Telecom in each year from 1998 is given in Table 3.

  Table 3: BT net disconnections for non-payment for the United Kingdom

  Average Number of Residential lines during period1

  Number of net disconnections for non-payment per 100 residential lines (disconnections minus reconnections)2

  Number of net disconnections

  (a)

  (b)

  (a*b)/100

  January-June 1998

  20,139,000

  1.5

  302,000

  July-December 1998

  20,100,000

  1.5

  302,000

  January-June 1999

  20,071,000

  1.4

  281,000

  July-December 1999

  20,065,000

  1.5

  301,000

  January-June 1999

  20,038,000

  1.6

  321,000

  July-December 1999

  19,962,000

  1.6

  319,000

  January-June 1999

  19,954,000

  1.5

  299,000

  1998

  —

  —

  604,000

  1999

  —

  —

  582,000

  2000

  —

  —

  640,000

  280W
  1 Market Information, http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/marketinfo/index.htm

  2 Oftel, http://www.oftel.gov.uk/consumer/initiatives/disc0900.htm

  Note:

  No data are publicly available on a regional basis or for years prior to 1998. Data refer to BT only.

  Data are not available to produce numbers of disconnections for electricity, gas, water or telecommunications in the Buckingham constituency.

  Company Statistics
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the work force is employed in companies that have grown 20 per cent. or more in the last four years in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) the St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the North West RDA region, (f) the other RDA regions, (g) England and (h) the UK. [35418]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 12 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the percentage of the workforce that is employed in companies that have grown 20% or more in the last four years in the following areas: a) St Helen's South b) the St Helen's MBC area c) Merseyside d) Manchester e) the north West RDA region f) the RDA regions g) England and h) the UK. (35418)
  The figures requested are shown in the table below:

  Percentage of the workforce employed in VAT based enterprises that have grown 20 per cent. or more between 1996 and May 2001

  Area

  Percentage

  St. Helen's South Parliamentary Constituency

  23

  St. Helen's District

  30

  Merseyside Metropolitan County

  37

  Manchester Unitary Authority

  45

  Greater Manchester Metropolitan County

  47

  North West

  42

  North East

  46

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  41

  East Midlands

  46

  West Midlands

  39

  East

  51

  London

  53

  South East

  49

  South West

  41

  England

  47

  UK

  47

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Inter Departmental Business Register Criteria: Businesses live at May 2001, from the extract for the DTI Small Business Publication—"VAT registrations and De-registrations: Business Start-ups and Closures" (available free of charge on www.sbs.gov.uk), compared with their situation in 1996.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the work force was employed by(a) European and (b) other foreign companies in (i) St. Helens, South, (ii) the St. Helens

  281W
  MBC area, (iii) Merseyside, (iv) Manchester, (v) the North West RDA region, (vi) the other RDA regions and (vii) England in each of the last five years. [35417]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 12 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the percentage of the workforce that is employed by (a) European and (b) other foreign companies in (i) St Helens South, (ii) the St Helens MBC area, (iii) Merseyside, (iv) Manchester, (v) the North West RDA region, (vi) the other RDA regions and (vii) England in each of the last five years. (35417)
  The information requested is not available for each of the last five years. It could only be given at disproportionate cost. However, information for 2001 can be given and is shown in the table below.

  Percentage employment in European (excl UK) and other foreign-owned VAT registered businesses 2001

  Area

  European (excl UK)

  Other foreign

  St. Helen's South PC

  2

  3

  St. Helen's District

  3

  2

  Merseyside Metropolitan County

  2

  2

  Manchester

  3

  2

  Greater Manchester Metropolitan County

  9

  3

  North West

  6

  3

  North East

  3

  4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  3

  8

  East Midlands

  3

  4

  West Midlands

  6

  6

  East

  3

  7

  London

  4

  8

  South East

  5

  11

  South West

  1

  4

  England

  4

  7

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics Inter Departmental Business Register Criteria: Based on the extract used to produce the National Statistics publication "PA1003—Size Analysis a United Kingdom Businesses 2001" (available free of charge on the NS website www. statistics.gov.uk). The figures are based on the location of the main address of the business.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of companies in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) the St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the North West RDA region, (f) the other RDA regions, (g) England and (h) the UK (i) started up and (ii) failed, in the last five years. [35419]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 12 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the percentage of companies in (a) St Helen's South, (b) the St Helen's MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the North West RDA region, (f) the other RDA regions (g) England and (h) the UK that were (i) start-ups and (ii) failed in the last five years.(35419).
  282W
  The figures for St Helen's South parliamentary constituency could only be given at disproportionate cost. However, the start-ups (VAT registrations), closures (VAT de-registrations) and stock (enterprises registered for VAT) for all counties, unitary authorities and districts in the UK requested, are available on the Small Business Service website. The web address is http://sbs.gov.uk/content/statistics/vat—2000.pdf. You will need to refer to tables 4, 5 and 6 Business Start ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-Registrations in 2000.

  Glazing Businesses
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support her Department plans to give to small glazing businesses in Bassetlaw who will not be able to afford the local authority building control fee when the legislation comes into effect on 1 April. [33511]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since the middle of last year, my Department has been in discussion with the Glass and Glazing Federation (GGF), regarding the setting up of a scheme for the self-certification of compliance with the Building Regulations for replacement glazing. The GGF set up a steering committee comprising key industry representative bodies, local authorities, my Department and others, to develop rules for such a scheme. These have recently been finalised, and the scheme is known as the Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme (FENSA). FENSA is open to any glazing installer who meets the relevant criteria, and has been developed to ensure that it is cost effective. Over 4,000 prospective members have completed pre-registration forms.

  I will shortly lay regulations before Parliament to authorise local authorities to accept certificates from FENSA registered installers, certifying that their work complies with the Building Regulations. The scheme currently deals only with dwellings, but will be extended to non-dwellings in due course. There will be no need for any competent glazing firm to have to pay local authority building control fees for replacement glazing in dwellings, and the costs of joining FENSA are comparatively small. I believe that the development of FENSA will not only significantly cut the costs of complying with the new regulations, but will be a major step forward in consumer protection.

  PILOT Advisory Group
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the present members of the PILOT advisory group and (b) former members who have subsequently left and been replaced, with the date on which this took place. [33197]

  Mr. Wilson
  Current PILOT members are as follows:

  Brian Wilson, Minister for Energy and Industry

  Lewis Macdonald, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning

  George Foulkes, Minister of State, Scotland Office

  Tom Botts, Country Chairman and Director Planning HSE and External Affairs. UK Shell International Petroleum Company

  John McDonald, Managing Director, Texaco North Sea

  Scott Urban, Regional President, BP Amoco Exploration

  Tom Smith, Chairman and Managing Director, Nessco Ltd.,

  Nessco House, Kirkhill Drive, Dyce, Aberdeen, AB2 OEU

  283W

  Sir Ian Wood, Chairman and Managing Director, John Wood Group

  James McCallum

  Paul Blakeley, Director and General Manager, Talisman Energy UK Ltd.

  Michel Contie. TotalFinaElf Exploration UK plc

  Mike Mannering, Managing Director UK, Schlumberger

  Mike Straughen, Managing Director, AMEC Services Ltd.

  David Cassie, Managing Director, Coflexip Stena Offshore

  Danny Carrigan, Scottish Regional Secretary, Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union

  Jon Cunliffe, Managing Director, Finance, Regulation and Industry, HM Treasury

  Stephen Hampson, Under Secretary, Economic and Industrial Affairs, Scottish Executive

  Dinah Nichols, DEFRA

  Joan MacNaughton, Director General, Energy

  Geoff Dart, Director, OG, DTI

  David Warren, Director, Business Group, Trade Partners UK

  Nick Starling, Director of Safety Policy, Safety Policy Directorate, Health and Safety Executive

  Iain Todd, Oil and Gas, DTI

  Angela Latta, Oil and Gas, DTI.

  Previous PILOT members with their date of leaving are as follows:

  Helen Liddell MP, February 2001

  Peter Hain MP, July 2001

  Wendy Alexander MSP, June 2001

  Alisdair Morrison MSP, December 2001

  Henry McLeish MSP, May 2000

  Malcolm Brinded, Shell UK, October 2001

  Member

  Chairman:

  John Battle MP

  Minister for Energy and Industry, DTI (replaced by Helen Liddell MP)

  Vice Chairman:

  Lord McDonald

  Minister for Business and Industry Scottish Office (replaced by Brian Wilson MP)

  Members:

  Mike Bowyer

  Managing Director, PES International Ltd.

  Malcolm Brinded

  Managing Director, Shell UK Exploration and Production, Country Chairman Shell UK

  Tom Smith

  Chairman and Managing Director, Nessco Ltd.

  Sir Ian Wood

  Chairman and Managing Director, John Wood Group plc, Chairman Scottish Enterprise, Chairman IEP Oil and Gas Exports Advisory Board

  Bobby Buirds

  Regional Officer, Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union (AEEU), Secretary IUOOC

  Syd Fudge

  Chief Executive, Kvaerner Oil and Gas Ltd., Chairman OCA,

  Francis Gugen

  Managing Director, Amerada Hess Ltd., Chairman CRINE

  Mark Hope

  Director, Enterprise Oil, Chairman Brindex, Vice President UKOOA

  Alan Jones

  Regional President, BP Amoco, Hon. Treasurer UKOOA

  James McCallum

  President, Global Marine Integrated Services Europe, Chairman SPN

  John McDonald

  Managing Director, Texaco (UK) North Sea Ltd.

  Anna Walker

  Director General, Energy, DTI

  Dinah Nichols

  Director General, DETR (Environmental Protection)

  Geoff Dart

  Director OG, DTI

  John Rhodes

  Director, IEP

  Godfrey Robson

  Under Secretary, Scottish Office

  Assessors:

  Jim Campbell

  Director IEP

  Julian Thomson

  Group Manager, Marketing and Communications, Stolt Comex Seaway Ltd.

  Secretary:

  Keith Mayo

  Deputy Director IEP

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide details for(a) the Oil and Gas Task Force and (b) PILOT of (i) the terms of reference of these advisory groups, (ii) the occasions on which meetings have taken place and (iii) the outcomes
  284W

  Steve Marshall, BP Amoco, August 2001

  Anna Walker, DG Energy, DTI, October 2001

  Jim Campbell, DTI, June 2000

  Godfrey Robson, Scottish Executive, June 2000

  Dave Smith, Conoco, November 2000

  Iain Craig, Enterprise Oil, January 2001

  Sir Steve Robson, Permanent Secretary HM Treasury, December 2000

  Francis Gugen, Amerada Hess, May 2000

  John Rhodes, BTI, February 2000

  Alan Jones, BP Amoco, April 2000.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide details of when the PILOT advisory group is due to report; and if she will place copies of related documentation in the Library. [33194]

  Mr. Wilson
  PILOT produced its 2000 End of Year Report in early 2001; the 2001 report is scheduled for publication in March 2002.

  Both of these reports are/will be available from the PILOT website www.pilottaskforce.co.uk.

  Oil and Gas Task Force
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of the Oil and Gas Task Force(a) at the time it was established and (b) at the time it was replaced by PILOT. [33196]

  Mr. Wilson
  The following list details all members of the Oil and Gas Industry Task Force throughout its duration.

  and recommendations which have (A) resulted and (B) will result from these meetings and the work of the advisory group; and if she will place copies of related documentation in the Library. [33195]
  285W
  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is as follows:(a) (i) Oil and Gas Industry (OGITF) Task Force Terms of Reference.

  The task force will bring together Government Departments and the oil and gas industry to develop mutual understanding of the key issues both short term and over the next 10 years, including for example, technology development, environmental policies and knowledge management. Working within the parameters set by Government policy, the economic situation, and sustainable development the task force will:
  develop strategies for reducing the cost base of UK oil and gas operations against the background of low oil prices, the prospects for world demand, the mature nature of the North sea and conditions in other UKCS areas;
  examine and prioritise initiatives aimed at improving the competitiveness of the UK industry;
  make specific recommendations by summer 1999 for actions to be taken by the industry or Government.

  (ii) OGITF meetings

  27 January 1999

  23 February 1999

  31 March 1999

  28 April 1999

  11–12 May 1999

  26 May 1999

  29 June 1999

  5 October 1999

  1 December 1999.

  (b) (i) PILOT Terms of Reference

  To be an exemplar of the way that industry, Government, and the work force can work together to improve competitiveness arena.

  To monitor the progress of Oil and Gas Industry Task Force (OGITF) initiatives and provide strategic support, guidance and mentoring as and when required.

  To provide strategic leadership and a high level, pan-industry forum to address and resolve pan-industry issues.

  To provide a pan-industry forum to identify and develop new initiatives to improve UK oil and gas industry competitiveness as and when required.

  To be recognised as the most successful, productive and collaborative community of stakeholders improving the health of UK's oil and gas sector.

  (ii) PILOT Meetings

  1 February 2000

  15 May 2000

  26 July 2000

  4 October 2000

  17 January 2001

  19–20 March 2001

  25 June 2001

  17 October 2001

  16 January 2002.

  The OGITF made its recommendations to the Secretary of State in September 1999 in its final report 'A Template for Change'. PILOT produced an end of year report in early 2001 with the next scheduled for publication in March 2002. These and all papers and minutes for OGITF are/will be available on the PILOT website www.pilottaskforce.co.uk

  Regulatory Reform
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will respond to the report of the Better Regulation Task Force on sector regulators; for what reason the response has been delayed beyond the target of 60 days; and what representations she has received from the task force in this respect. [31024]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government response is being published today and I have placed a copy in the Libraries of the House. This task force report was unusual in the way it covered a number of different sectors and it was necessary to discuss the response with the relevant economic regulators and co-ordinate it across several Government Departments.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the British companies which have received export licences to export arms and army-related equipment to(a) Qatar, (b) United Arab Emirates, (c) Bahrain and (d) Oman in each year since 1995; and if she will make a statement. [34084]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Information on export licences issued to particular British companies is commercially confidential, and is exempt from disclosure under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Details of all export licences issued are published by destination in the Government's annual reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 annual reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 annual report will be published as soon as possible.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) boys and (b) girls are taking apprenticeships within the construction industry in England and Wales. [33559]

  Mr. Wilson
  The spring 2001 Labour Forces Survey estimates that 47,000 people are currently doing recognised trade apprenticeships in construction. This is almost twice the number undertaking apprenticeships in 1996. It is not possible to split the figures down by gender because the sample size is too small. The survey also shows that of those currently working in construction, 800,000 people have completed or are still on apprenticeship schemes, of these 6,000 are female. The figures should be treated as indicative and are likely to be underestimates, as people taking apprenticeships tend to be young and mobile and do not always show up on surveys.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether the recent discovery of radiolytic corrosion in the graphite moderators of UK Magnox reactors will result in premature closures; [34002]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recent events leading to the closure of the nuclear reactors at (a) Chaplecross and (b) Calder Hall; [34003]
  287W
  (3) what discussions he has had with his colleague the Secretary of State for Health regarding safety actions which the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate will undertake in relation to graphite depletion in UK Magnox reactors. [34001]

  Mr. Wilson: BNFL
  has announced its strategy for the Magnox stations including maximum operating lifetime limits for each station. Details are set out in the company' s annual report and accounts for 2001. Subject to annual reviews, and provided it remains safe and economic to do so, BNFL intends to operate each of the reactors up to a 50 year lifetime. This means the latest closure date for the four reactors at Calder Hall falls between 2006 and 2008 and for the four at Chapelcross the latest closure dates fall between 2008 and 2010. It is a matter of commercial judgment for BNFL as to whether or not any factors might arise which might make it uneconomical to continue operating any reactor up to its maximum lifetime limit.

  The phenomenon of graphite weight loss (referred to in my hon. Friend's questions as radiolytic corrosion and graphite depletion) in Magnox reactors, resulting from the irradiation and heating of the graphite during reactor operation, is well known to both BNFL and HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII). This affects most of the Magnox stations and is monitored closely to ensure that it does not lead to any problems of safety significance. Graphite weight loss is not a significant issue for the reactors at Chapelcross or Calder Hall as these reactors operate at a lower temperature.

  At the start of the routine annual outage of Reactor 1 at Chapelcross at the end of August 2001, BNFL discovered that a number of chargepans on top of the reactor had moved out of alignment. This occurrence is related to the well-understood phenomenon of radiation-induced graphite shrinkage which is a separate matter from graphite weight loss. As the four reactors at Calder Hall are of the same design as Reactor 1 at Chapelcross, BNFL decided, in consultation with HSE, to carry out inspections of these reactors too as these reached their next scheduled outrages. All four reactors at Calder Hall are now shut down. They will not be returned to operation until BNFL and the HSE are satisfied that it is safe to do so. This includes the requirement that the issue of misaligned chargepans needs to have been effectively addressed. This is also the case for Reactor 1 at Chapelcross.

  Reactors 2, 3 and 4 at Chapelcross have different design features which means that they are less susceptible to graphite shrinkage. They have not been affected by the misaligned chargepans problem. Reactor 3 at Chapelcross was shutdown in July due to the incident that took place during a fuelling outage when a failed grab in the defuelling machine led to a basket of spent fuel being dropped. Having received Consent from the HSE, BNFL has now restarted Reactor 3. Reactor 2 at Chapelcross is operating and Reactor 4 was shut down at the end of January for its planned annual maintenance outrage. Currently, BNFL is awaiting approval from the HSE to resume refuelling operations at Chapelcross.
  288W
  Matters relating to nuclear safety fall to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Neither the issue of graphite weight loss nor that of graphite shrinkage has been discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Pallets
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the change in the size of the UK pallet market in the last four years. [25341]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The Department has made no such assessment. However I would be happy to address any particular concern that the hon. Member may wish to raise.

  Public Holidays
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what calculations she has made of the cost to public funds of an additional day's public holiday in(a) the UK, (b) Wales only, (c) Scotland only and (d) England only. [34908]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: There has been no cost assessment made of the financial implications to the public purse resulting from an additional day's public holiday throughout the United Kingdom nor individually for Wales, Scotland and England.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what figures she has collated on the number of paid bank holidays employees are entitled to in each European Union country; what plans the Government have to increase the number of paid bank holidays in the UK; and if employees will be eligible to a paid bank holiday for the forthcoming Queen's Golden Jubilee. [34948]

  Alan Johnson
  Employees have no statutory entitlement to payment for bank holidays in the UK. Therefore, whether they are eligible for payment in respect of the Queen's golden jubilee holiday will depend on their contract of employment.

  There are no plans to increase the number of bank holidays in the UK, and we do not collate figures on the number of paid bank holidays in each member state of the EU.

  Eurozone
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessments she has made of the impact of Britain's employment laws on(a) the loss of jobs in manufacturing industry and (b) the transfer of UK jobs to countries in the Eurozone in the last five years. [34836]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The Department publishes Regulatory Impact assessments for all proposals for legislation before they are introduced. There is no evidence to suggest that employment legislation has affected the level of manufacturing employment.
  289W
  (b) It is not possible to estimate how many jobs have moved from the UK to other countries in the EU or from other EU countries into the UK. However the UK continues to remain an attractive location for inward investment. Almost a quarter (24 per cent.) of all FDI in Europe goes to the UK compared to 14 per cent. for Germany and 11 per cent. for France (1999).

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her implementation of the end of Life Vehicles Directive; and whether she intends to make it apply retrospectively on vehicle manufacturers. [32980]

  Mr. Wilson
  The responses to our consultation paper on options for implementing the Directive are now being assessed, along with the recommendations and conclusions of the Trade and Industry Committee. The Government are working to transpose and implement the Directive in accordance with the dates and options specified in the text, and without putting UK business at a disadvantage. In the Government's view, the Directive's provisions are not legally retrospective.

  Electricity Imports
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much electricity was imported from France into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [32982]

  Mr. Wilson
  Imports of electricity from France to the United Kingdom, for the years 1997 to 2001 are as follows:

  GWh

  1997

  16,558

  1998

  12,547

  1999

  14,484

  2000

  14,267

  2001

  10,563

  Note:

  The figure for 2001 is provisional.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list her Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32800]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 692W.

  Enron Europe
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what submissions have been received by the Government from Enron Europe since May 1997 that have been made publicly available. [31934]

  Mr. Wilson
  In common with other participants in the energy markets, Enron has made submissions to the Government on various issues, including public consultations. Details of all the submissions made could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, it is DTI practice to place a summary of responses to public 290W
  consultations in the Libraries of the House and, except where companies made submissions in confidence, copies of submissions are available on request.

  Energy Reserves
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long UK(a) coal, (b) oil and (c) gas reserves are expected to last. [35608]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the Coal Authority's evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union on 12 November 2001, coal reserves at existing UK mines were assessed in 2001 at around 220 million tonnes, equivalent to about seven years of UK coal production at 2000 production rates. The evidence also said that there was a further known potential of 380 million tonnes and, in addition, currently unaccessed deep mine and opencast resources potentially provide many years of future production at present levels.

  Detailed estimates of oil and gas reserves on the UK continental shelf are given in the Brown Book (Development of UK Oil and Gas Resources 2001). The extent to which these reserves might be produced depends on a number of factors, including prices and costs relative to other oil producing areas. It is therefore difficult to make accurate predictions, but if all the discovered reserves given in the Brown Book were to be developed they represent some 11 years of oil production and 14 years of gas production at rates seen in 2000. If in addition, estimates of as yet undiscovered reserves are also considered, UK oil reserves represent between 13 and 29 years of production and UK gas reserves represent between 17 and 29 years of production, although the upper estimates are unlikely. In practice, production levels will fall and reserves will last longer. Indeed, a Pilot target is to produce 3 Mboed (million barrels of oil equivalent per day) in 2010 against about 4.5 Mboed in 2000.

  Green Technologies
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote the take-up of green technologies. [33737]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's aim is for the UK to become a leading player in the new markets for green energy and products, waste minimisation, recycling and re-use. Support for the take-up of green technologies is provided through a wide range of activities. The main ones to which DTI contributes directly are:

  The Sustainable Technologies Initiative offers grants for the development of new, more sustainable technologies. The total funding available from Government exceeds £18 million, of which £10 million is contributed by DTI, and £8 million is contributed through the science budget by research councils.

  The Envirowise programme is jointly funded by DTI and DEFRA and is helping UK companies increase their competitiveness through the introduction of resource efficiency techniques and cost-effective cleaner technology. Support for the current phase is some £31 million by the two Departments.

  DTI has committed £12.5 million over three years to the Waste and Resources Action Programme.
  291W
  Promoting more sustainable technologies and practices in construction is a key objective of my Department's £15 million construction research and innovation programme.

  The Government are providing substantial support to industry for the development of renewable forms of energy.

  Introducing the new Renewables Obligation, exempting renewables from the Climate Change Levy and protecting existing Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) contracts will together create a long-term market incentive for renewables worth over £1 billion per year by 2010.

  We are underpinning the obligation with direct Government funding for renewables worth over £260 million between 2001 and 2004. We are setting up extensive capital grants programmes, in particular for offshore wind and energy crops projects, initiating a major photovoltaics demonstration programme, and boosting research and development.

  We recently introduced an order to allow locational flexibility for NFFO 3, 4 and 5 projects that have not yet been commissioned. This will allow more appropriate locations to be found in order to overcome problems in securing planning permission.

  We have initiated studies of each UK region's capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources. Once all these assessments are completed, it is expected that specific regional targets for renewable energy will be adopted across the UK.

  The Government are also exploring the scope for upgrading the electricity distribution system to enable the UK's huge renewable energy resources to be exploited to the full. For example, we have commissioned an initial study of the feasibility of an underwater cable to connect parts of the western seaboard of the UK directly to the National Grid.

  The Department is also working with other Government Departments on activities such as the Carbon Trust and the Green Technology Challenge.

  Retention Systems
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of the system of retention on smaller construction companies; and if she plans to change the system of retention; [30569]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the amount of retentions held back in the construction industry in each of the last 10 years; [30571]

  (3) which local authorities operate a retention system in their building programmes. [30570]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The Government do not collect data on the use of retentions by construction clients or suppliers. Retentions are a common contractual agreement between the parties resulting from decades of adversarial relationships between the players in the industry. We are taking a range of steps to address the root causes of the distrust. Through the Rethinking Construction initiative, run in partnership by Government and the construction industry, we have developed and disseminated policies that promote a culture change in the
  292W
  industry and across clients. These are based on partnering and long-term relationships between the parties where they co-operate to maximise efficiency and benefits, and to drive waste out of the project.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department intends to take to ensure CHP is excluded from the obligation base for the Government's renewable energy obligation. [35386]

  Mr. Wilson
  Responses to the Statutory Consultation on the Renewables Obligation included the suggestion that excluding electricity from good quality combined heat and power (CHP) installations from the total electricity sales figures on which the Renewables Obligation was based might be an effective means of supporting CHP.

  In the event, this suggestion was not pursued, on the basis of clear legal advice that it would be going beyond the powers conferred by Parliament (ultra vires) to use an Obligation intended to promote renewable energy to promote other forms of energy generation.

  DEFRA is developing, in close collaboration with other Departments, a draft CHP Strategy which will set out the measures needed to achieve the CHP target of at least 10,000 megawatts of good quality CHP by 2010. This will be issued for consultation shortly.

  BNFL
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with British Nuclear Fuels in respect of improving the safety and security of buildings B302 and B302.1 at Sellafield. [32290]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. I have received advice from officials on the safety and security of civil nuclear installations, including those at Sellafield. Officials have had discussions with BNFL. Safety and security precautions at nuclear sites are kept under regular review.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 618W, on BNFL, if she will list (a) those bodies which provided the independent advice on BNFL liabilities and (b) the contracts entered into with those advising the Department. [34686]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department received advice on BNFL's liabilities from Andersen, Arthur D Little, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deloitte and Touche, HSBC, Slaughter and May and Lane Clark and Peacock.

  With the exception of the contract entered into with Arthur D Little, which asked the firm specifically to review the methods used by BNFL when quantifying its liabilities, the contracts entered into with the remaining firms sought advice on a number of issues, including liabilities.

  These contracts were awarded following best departmental practice which involved obtaining competitive tenders and, where applicable, following EU procurement rules.

  Energy White Paper
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date she will issue the Energy White Paper. [34048]

  Mr. Wilson
  Energy policy issues will be further canvassed in the PIU report. No decision has yet been taken on the form of any responses to that review.

  Staff Payments (Commercial Negotiations)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice Ministers in her Department have sought from the head of her Department regarding the propriety of members of their personal staff receiving payments from companies that are involved in commercial negotiations with her Department; and if she will make a statement. [34420]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that no conflict of interest, or apparent conflict of interest arises between their personal affairs and their ministerial responsibilities, as set out in the Ministerial Code. Details of advice given by officials to Ministers are not disclosed.

  Retail sales of road transportation fuels

  Thousand tonnes per annum

  Fuels

  England and Wales1

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  1998

  DERV fuel

  5,916

  564

  122

  6,602

  Of which:

  ultra low sulphur diesel2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  702

  Unleaded petrol

  15,355

  1,148

  338

  16,841

  4-star/lead replacement petrol3

  4,301

  225

  69

  4,595

  Liquid petroleum gas4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  1999

  DERV fuel

  6,478

  566

  93

  7,137

  Of which:

  ultra low sulphur diesel2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6,066

  Unleaded petrol

  17,253

  1,247

  281

  18,781

  4-star/lead replacement petrol3

  2,478

  117

  34

  2,629

  Liquid petroleum gas4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  2000

  DERV fuel

  6,925

  462

  76

  7,463

  Of which:

  ultra low sulphur diesel2

  6,925

  462

  76

  7,463

  Unleaded petrol

  18,048

  1,094

  269

  19,411

  4-star/lead replacement petrol3

  1,394

  51

  17

  1,462

  Liquid petroleum gas4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  22

  1 Separate data on retail sales in Wales are not available.

  2 Data are not available on retail sales of ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) in 1998 and 1999 broken down by nation. These years cover the period when it was replacing, and co-mingling with, ordinary diesel or DERV fuel at retail stations. By 2000 all supplies entering the retail market were of ULSD.

  3 Four-star leaded petrol was phased out at the end of 1999. As such, the data provided include sales of lead replacement petrol as it was replacing, and co-mingling with, leaded petrol at retail stations.

  4 Although increasing rapidly, the use of liquid petroleum gas as a road fuel is still relatively minor at the moment, and so a breakdown by nation is not available

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics: Energy Trends, September 2001 edition.

  Oil Suppliers and Retailers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the steps her Department takes to monitor the fairness of the

  Mineworkers' Compensation
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation was paid to former mineworkers in Nottinghamshire in respect of(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger in (i) December 2001 and (ii) January 2002. [34689]

  Mr. Wilson
  The following table details compensation paid in Nottinghamshire:

  £ million

  (i) December2001

  (ii) January 2002

  (a) Respiratory disease compensation

  1.8

  0.9

  (b) Vibration White Finger compensation

  2.4

  4.8

  Retail Fuels Market
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the size of the road transportation retail fuels market in each nation of the UK was in(a) ultra low sulphur diesel, (b) unleaded petrol, (c) four star petrol and (d) liquefied petroleum gas in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000. [35068]

  Mr. Wilson
  Not all of the information requested is available. The available data are given in the table.

  contractual relationship between oil suppliers and retailers in non-competition issues. [35069]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department does not monitor contracts between oil suppliers and retailers.
  295W
  More generally, however, I am discussing with the oil industry whether and how relationships in the supply chain might be improved.

  Road Transport Fuels
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 669W, on rural petrol stations, when she expects to announce the more effective mechanisms for the supply of road transport fuels. [35191]

  Mr. Wilson
  As I said in my earlier answer of 10 December 2001 to my hon. Friend, I am considering whether there is a case for putting in place more effective mechanisms to support the objectives discussed by my hon. Friend. This is a complex matter, on which it is likely to take some time to reach a conclusion.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 169W, on Fair Trade goods, (1) if she will review during Fair Trade Fortnight the amount of fairly traded goods used in her Department; [35455]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 26 November 2001, Official Report, column 682W, if she will review and increase the amount of fairly traded goods purchased by her Department during Fair Trade Fortnight. [35917]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 969W.

  Building Firms
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if there is a professional organisation that has a list of building firms that are reputable. [34688]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI has developed the Quality Mark scheme to enable householders to quickly and easily identify reputable and competent construction firms. The scheme ensures that Quality Mark tradesmen are technically competent, possess relevant qualifications and display financial probity and registers them for the public to use.

  The Quality Mark scheme includes various customer care measures, such as a code of practice and an effective complaints system. There is also a scheme warranty that provides protection against defects in workmanship for six years after completion of works.

  Pilots are operating in Birmingham and Somerset and the scheme has been extended to contractors in Leicestershire and east Kent. So far 138 builders have been awarded the Quality Mark and over 200 are in the assessment pipeline. The scheme is currently undergoing evaluation, and a report will be made to Ministers shortly.

  DTI's national register, Constructionline, is operated under a public-private partnership by Capita Business Services Ltd. It was set up to reduce the cost to both firms and clients of repeated information handling at the initial stage of tendering for work. Public and commercial sector clients who use Constructionline gain access, free, to a single, nationwide list of approved construction firms.
  296W
  Constructionline assesses firms against commercially accepted standards to show that they have the capacity and capability to carry out the types and size of work for which they wish to tender. Firms pay a fee, close to cost, for registration and annual review on a sliding scale based on turnover. There are more than 10,000 firms registered with Constructionline and 13,330 licensed clients. Client access to the data, whether to individual firms' records or to source a project list of approved firms, rose by 73 per cent. in the year to January 2002.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Road Accidents
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries were caused by road crashes in the Metropolitan Police area in 2001; and at what estimated cost to public funds. [31018]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 2000, the most recent calendar year for which figures are available, there were 292 deaths and 5,847 serious injuries on roads in the Metropolitan police area.

  An estimate of the full cost to public funds is not available. However, it is estimated that accidents involving death or serious injury in the Metropolitan police area in 2000 resulted in around £60 million of hospital, ambulance and police costs. This estimate includes any costs related to less seriously injured casualties in these accidents. Costs to public funds will also include social security payments and damage to public property which cannot be estimated.

  Jury Trial
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on trial by jury; and if he will make a statement. [32367]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government are committed to jury trial for those cases that warrant it. Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts, the report of which was published last October, made a number of recommendations with major implications for trial by jury. The Government are considering the report and will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Drug Awareness Programmes
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution he plans that coroners' courts will make to drug awareness programmes. [32369]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data from inquest cases can assist in providing a firm baseline for measuring the effectiveness of drug prevention strategies. The Government action plan to prevent drug-related deaths, announced last November, undertook to increase information from coroners' reports and to provide best practice guidance and training to coroners by March 2003.
  297W
  Media reporting of inquests into drug-related deaths can bring home to the public the dangers involved in misusing drugs. At least one coroner has sought to encourage senior school children to attend such inquest hearings.

  Extradition
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with United States officials about the potential extradition of terrorist suspects to the USA. [33609]

  Mr. Blunkett [holding answer 5 February 2002]: I discussed extradition in general terms at meetings with Mr. John Ashcroft, the United States Attorney-General, on 12 December 2001; and Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on 17 January 2002.

  The United States is an important extradition partner and officials routinely have to discuss individual cases with their authorities, as the need arises. We also keep our extradition relations with them under general review.

  Youth Referrals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged under 16 years have been referred to local authority social services departments by criminal courts over the last five years in(a) England and Wales and (b) Devon. [34499]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not contain the information requested.

  Volunteering
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage people to take part in volunteering activity. [34562]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have set themselves a target of making I million more people active in their communities by 2004. The active community unit has made significant investment in projects and initiatives aimed at encouraging people to take part in voluntary activity and making it easier for them to do so. Timebank, the Community Channel, Do-It and other initiatives have been established in partnership with media organisations. We are investing £19 million in the experience corps. Mentoring projects have been established with funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in January 2001.

  English Language
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those known to have settled in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years is fluent in the English language. [34674]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: There are no recent, reliable figures about the number of people who have settled in the United Kingdom within the last 10 years who are fluent in English. We do not routinely ask people applying for settlement about their linguistic ability.
  298W
  In 2002, some 125,090 people were accepted for settlement. Some of them will have English as their first language and others will have developed a degree of fluency by virtue of the time they have spent here before becoming eligible for settlement.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collates on the ethnic origin of the(a) perpetrators and (b) victims of racially motivated attacks; and if he will make a statement. [34678]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The Home Office collects information on the ethnic origin of victims and perpetrators through the British Crime Survey. The most recent findings relating to racially motivated crimes were published in October 2001 in Home Office Research Study Number 223, 'Crime, Policing and Justice: the experience of ethnic minorities'.

  A new statistical return covering the offence group, age, gender and ethnic appearance of victims of racist crimes was introduced from 1 April 2001 in police forces. The first returns are expected at the end of this financial year and will be published by the Home Office in its annual publication, 'Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System'.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 666W, to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) how many persons (a) under and (b) over 18 participated in the on-line consultation on the Fairer Sentencing website; how many were students; and what evidence he has of the representative nature of those participants. [34779]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: As indicated in the Introduction to the overview of the responses to consultation on the Halliday report that I announced on 4 February, over 1,200 attempts were made at the quiz on the Fairer Sentencing website, and about 100 messages posted on the debate forum. In addition, over 120 e-mails have been received, some of which have come through that website. Those who participated in this way were not asked to give any personal information though a very small number did so. Access to the on-line debating facility was available to all with access to the Internet through this website. Its availability was publicised widely and was designed to enable a wider section of the public to contribute to the debate. The consultation was not intended to be a scientifically based opinion survey but a means of extending the consultation more widely than the usual route of contact with criminal justice system professionals and known interest groups. The total number of written correspondence received in response to the public consultation exercise on the Halliday report was 185, which includes correspondence from those connected with the Criminal Justice System and members of the public.

  Coroners Duties (Deaths Overseas)
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of local coroners relating to UK nationals who die abroad. [32372]

  Beverley Hughes
  Coroners in England and Wales must hold an inquest into a death overseas if the body is brought into their jurisdiction, the death reported, and the circumstances are those in which an inquest would be required if the death had occurred here.

  Police Retention
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police officers(a) retired from, (b) left for other reasons from and (c) was

  Police officer retirements, other wastage and recruitment 1997 to 2001

  Police officer retirements1: number and proportion of total strength

  April 1997-March 1998

  April 1998-March 1999

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-March 2001

  Police force

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  124

  4.2

  80

  2.7

  104

  3.5

  109

  3.6

  Bedfordshire

  46

  4.3

  49

  4.7

  39

  3.8

  31

  3.0

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  2.6

  46

  3.6

  37

  3.0

  28

  2.2

  Cheshire

  82

  4.0

  61

  2.9

  67

  3.3

  62

  3.1

  City of London

  38

  4.6

  27

  3.5

  29

  4.0

  26

  3.7

  Cleveland

  25

  1.7

  53

  3.7

  53

  3.8

  65

  4.6

  Cumbria

  45

  3.9

  36

  3.2

  50

  4.6

  41

  3.9

  Derbyshire

  77

  4.3

  50

  2.8

  36

  2.0

  37

  2.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  111

  3.7

  96

  3.3

  112

  3.9

  108

  3.7

  Dorset

  88

  6.7

  45

  3.5

  49

  3.8

  54

  4.0

  Durham

  51

  3.4

  32

  2.0

  32

  2.1

  35

  2.2

  Dyfed Powys

  25

  2.5

  20

  1.9

  31

  3.0

  30

  2.8

  Essex

  100

  3.4

  96

  3.3

  99

  3.5

  75

  2.6

  Gloucestershire

  56

  5.1

  51

  4.6

  36

  3.2

  35

  3.0

  Greater Manchester

  329

  4.7

  282

  4.1

  235

  3.5

  239

  3.5

  Gwent

  32

  2.6

  28

  2.2

  49

  3.9

  43

  3.4

  Hampshire

  70

  2.0

  67

  1.9

  129

  3.8

  107

  3.1

  Hertfordshire

  51

  2.9

  45

  2.6

  67

  3.8

  48

  2.5

  Humberside

  83

  4.1

  64

  3.2

  76

  3.9

  74

  3.9

  Kent

  89

  2.7

  79

  2.5

  102

  3.2

  103

  3.1

  Lancashire

  111

  3.4

  75

  2.3

  78

  2.5

  105

  3.2

  Leicestershire

  59

  3.0

  47

  2.4

  46

  2.3

  56

  2.8

  Lincolnshire

  33

  2.8

  49

  4.3

  58

  5.2

  45

  3.7

  Merseyide

  151

  3.6

  112

  2.7

  116

  2.8

  124

  3.0

  Metropolitan police

  983

  3.8

  1,065

  4.1

  815

  3.2

  686

  2.8

  Norfolk

  66

  4.6

  47

  3.4

  45

  3.3

  49

  3.5

  North Wales

  46

  3.3

  62

  4.5

  49

  3.5

  60

  4.2

  North Yorkshire

  38

  2.8

  29

  2.2

  51

  4.0

  55

  4.2

  Northamptonshire

  44

  3.8

  16

  1.4

  25

  2.2

  26

  2.2

  Northumbria

  151

  4.0

  115

  3.0

  103

  2.7

  91

  2.4

  Nottinghamshire

  92

  4.0

  82

  3.7

  67

  3.0

  75

  3.3

  South Wales

  136

  4.6

  139

  4.7

  105

  3.6

  131

  4.2

  South Yorkshire

  92

  2.9

  100

  3.2

  100

  3.2

  104

  3.3

  Staffordshire

  126

  5.5

  69

  3.1

  51

  24

  50

  2.3

  Suffolk

  51

  4.3

  26

  2.2

  37

  3.2

  52

  4.6

  Surrey

  73

  4.5

  50

  3.0

  54

  3.0

  52

  3.7

  Sussex

  128

  4.3

  127

  4.5

  107

  3.8

  106

  3.7

  Thames Valley

  123

  3.3

  92

  2.5

  109

  2.9

  91

  2.5

  Warwickshire

  45

  4.9

  42

  4.6

  25

  2.8

  33

  3.6

  West Mercia

  69

  3.4

  71

  3.5

  79

  4.2

  114

  5.8

  West Midlands

  294

  4.1

  203

  2.8

  184

  2.6

  158

  2.1

  West Yorkshire

  163

  3.2

  142

  2.9

  153

  3.2

  158

  3.3

  Wiltshire

  48

  4.2

  45

  3.9

  40

  3.6

  33

  2.9

  Total for all 43 forces

  4,678

  3.7

  4,112

  3.3

  3,929

  3.2

  3,804

  3.1

  Total including secondments

  4,678

  3.7

  4,112

  3.3

  3,929

  3.2

  3,804

  3.0

  1 Retirements include ordinary and medical retirements

  300W
  recruited to each police force in each year since 1997. [34780]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The information provided relates to financial year data and is given in the table.

  Latest figures as at 30 September 2001, showed that 6,160 officers left the service in the previous 12 months. This represents 4.9 per cent. of the total police strength of the 43 forces in England and Wales. Within this total, 3,931 officers retired and the remainder left for other reasons including resignations, transfers to forces outside England and Wales, dismissals and deaths.

  During the 12 months to 30 September 2001, 9,020 officers were recruited, this is 3,694 or 69 per cent. more than the previous year and the most since 1979. This represents 7.2 per cent. of the total strength.
  301W

  Other police officer wastage: number and proportion of total strength

  April 1997-March 1998

  April 1998-March 1999

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-March 2001

  Police force

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  24

  0.8

  24

  0.8

  42

  1.4

  51

  1.7

  Bedfordshire

  21

  1.9

  14

  1.3

  19

  1.8

  51

  4.0

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  2.6

  20

  1.6

  17

  1.4

  42

  3.2

  Cheshire

  20

  1.0

  11

  0.5

  23

  1.1

  23

  1.1

  City of London

  35

  4.2

  31

  4.0

  21

  2.9

  29

  4.1

  Cleveland

  16

  1.1

  25

  1.8

  6

  0.4

  16

  1.1

  Cumbria

  11

  0.9

  24

  2.1

  16

  1.5

  28

  2.7

  Derbyshire

  16

  0.9

  9

  0.5

  11

  0.6

  11

  0.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  18

  0.6

  15

  0.5

  22

  0.8

  22

  0.7

  Dorset

  20

  1.5

  19

  1.5

  26

  2.0

  15

  1.1

  Durham

  28

  1.8

  10

  0.6

  26

  1.7

  18

  1.1

  Dyfed Powys

  7

  0.7

  5

  0.5

  8

  0.8

  19

  1.8

  Essex

  57

  1.9

  26

  0.9

  70

  2.5

  66

  2.3

  Gloucestershire

  9

  0.8

  9

  0.8

  17

  1.5

  12

  1.0

  Greater Manchester

  51

  0.7

  64

  0.9

  61

  0.9

  65

  0.9

  Gwent

  18

  1.5

  22

  1.8

  19

  1.5

  15

  1.2

  Hampshire

  87

  2.5

  70

  2.0

  61

  1.8

  80

  2.3

  Hertfordshire

  44

  2.5

  46

  2.7

  48

  2.7

  69

  3.6

  Humberside

  29

  1.4

  30

  1.5

  19

  1.0

  61

  3.2

  Kent

  50

  1.5

  70

  2.2

  54

  1.7

  53

  1.6

  Lancashire

  24

  0.7

  24

  0.7

  33

  1.0

  34

  1.0

  Leicestershire

  34

  1.7

  47

  2.4

  23

  1.2

  16

  0.8

  Lincolnshire

  41

  3.4

  12

  1.1

  9

  0.8

  15

  1.2

  Merseyide

  27

  0.6

  24

  0.6

  29

  0.7

  33

  0.8

  Metropolitan police

  578

  2.2

  660

  2.5

  662

  2.6

  412

  1.7

  Norfolk

  22

  1.5

  17

  1.2

  12

  0.9

  13

  0.9

  North Wales

  9

  0.6

  10

  0.7

  7

  0.5

  15

  1.0

  North Yorkshire

  14

  1.0

  15

  1.1

  15

  1.2

  7

  0.5

  Northamptonshire

  13

  1.1

  44

  3.9

  13

  1.2

  28

  2.4

  Northumbria

  53

  1.4

  45

  1.2

  48

  1.3

  45

  1.2

  Nottinghamshire

  21

  0.9

  28

  1.3

  25

  1.1

  21

  0.9

  South Wales

  17

  0.6

  27

  0.9

  26

  0.9

  30

  1.0

  South Yorkshire

  32

  1.0

  44

  1.4

  37

  1.2

  34

  1.1

  Staffordshire

  35

  1.5

  27

  1.2

  30

  1.4

  25

  1.2

  Suffolk

  13

  1.1

  28

  2.4

  19

  1.7

  24

  2.1

  Surrey

  46

  2.9

  32

  1.9

  26

  1.5

  40

  1.9

  Sussex

  53

  1.8

  74

  2.6

  78

  2.8

  80

  2.8

  Thames Valley

  65

  1.7

  44

  1.2

  80

  2.1

  81

  2.2

  Warwickshire

  21

  2.3

  13

  1.4

  13

  1.4

  21

  2.3

  West Mercia

  30

  1.5

  29

  1.4

  23

  1.2

  42

  2.2

  West Midlands

  152

  2.1

  138

  1.9

  143

  2.0

  161

  2.2

  West Yorkshire

  69

  1.3

  56

  1.1

  56

  1.2

  65

  1.3

  Wiltshire

  15

  1.3

  10

  0.9

  26

  2.3

  32

  2.9

  Total for all 43 forces

  1,979

  1.6

  1,992

  1.6

  2,019

  1.7

  2,010

  1.6

  Total including secondments

  1,979

  1.6

  1,992

  1.6

  2,019

  1.6

  2,010

  1.6

  1 Retirements include ordinary and medical retirements

  Total police officer wastage: number and proportion of total strength

  April 1997-March 1998

  April 1998-March 1999

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-March 2001

  Police force

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  148

  5.0

  104

  3.5

  146

  5.0

  160

  5.3

  Bedfordshire

  67

  6.2

  63

  6.1

  58

  5.6

  72

  7.0

  Cambridgeshire

  68

  5.3

  66

  5.2

  54

  4.4

  70

  5.4

  Cheshire

  102

  5.0

  72

  3.5

  90

  4.5

  85

  4.2

  City of London

  73

  8.8

  58

  7.5

  50

  6.8

  55

  7.8

  Cleveland

  41

  2.8

  78

  5.5

  59

  4.2

  81

  5.8

  Cumbria

  56

  4.8

  60

  5.3

  66

  6.1

  69

  6.6

  Derbyshire

  93

  5.2

  59

  3.4

  47

  2.6

  48

  2.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  129

  4.4

  111

  3.8

  134

  4.7

  130

  4.4

  Dorset

  108

  8.2

  64

  5.0

  75

  5.7

  69

  5.1

  Durham

  79

  5.2

  42

  2.7

  58

  3.7

  53

  3.3

  Dyfed Powys

  32

  3.2

  25

  2.4

  39

  3.8

  49

  4.6

  Essex

  157

  5.4

  122

  4.2

  169

  6.0

  141

  4.9

  Gloucestershire

  65

  5.9

  60

  5.4

  53

  4.8

  47

  4.0

  Greater Manchester

  380

  5.5

  346

  5.1

  296

  4.4

  304

  4.4

  Gwent

  50

  4.1

  50

  4.0

  68

  5.4

  58

  4.6

  Hampshire

  157

  4.5

  137

  3.9

  190

  5.6

  187

  5.4

  Hertfordshire

  95

  5.5

  91

  5.3

  115

  6.5

  117

  6.1

  Humberside

  112

  5.5

  94

  4.8

  95

  4.9

  135

  7.0

  302W 303W

  Total police officer wastage: number and proportion of total strength

  April 1997-March 1998

  April 1998-March 1999

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-March 2001

  Police force

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Kent

  139

  4.3

  149

  4.7

  156

  4.9

  156

  4.7

  Lancashire

  135

  4.1

  99

  3.1

  111

  3.5

  139

  4.3

  Leicestershire

  93

  4.7

  94

  4.7

  69

  3.5

  72

  3.5

  Lincolnshire

  74

  6.2

  61

  5.4

  67

  6.0

  60

  5.0

  Merseyide

  178

  4.2

  3.6

  3.2

  145

  3.5

  157

  3.8

  Metropolitan police

  1,561

  6.0

  1,725

  6.6

  1,477

  5.8

  1,098

  4.4

  Norfolk

  88

  6.2

  64

  4.6

  57

  4.1

  62

  4.4

  North Wales

  55

  3.9

  72

  5.2

  56

  4.0

  75

  5.2

  North Yorkshire

  52

  3.8

  44

  3.3

  66

  5.1

  62

  4.7

  Northamptonshire

  57

  4.9

  60

  5.3

  38

  3.4

  54

  4.7

  Northumbria

  204

  5.4

  160

  4.2

  151

  4.0

  136

  3.5

  Nottinghamshire

  113

  4.9

  110

  4.9

  92

  4.2

  96

  4.2

  South Wales

  153

  5.1

  166

  5.6

  131

  4.5

  161

  5.1

  South Yorkshire

  124

  3.9

  144

  4.5

  137

  4.3

  138

  4.3

  Staffordshire

  161

  7.0

  96

  4.3

  81

  3.7

  75

  3.5

  Suffolk

  64

  5.4

  54

  4.5

  56

  4.9

  76

  6.7

  Surrey

  119

  7.4

  82

  4.9

  80

  4.5

  92

  4.5

  Sussex

  181

  6.0

  201

  7.1

  185

  6.6

  186

  6.5

  Thames Valley

  188

  5.0

  136

  3.6

  189

  5.1

  172

  4.6

  Warwickshire

  66

  7.1

  55

  6.1

  38

  4.2

  54

  5.8

  West Mercia

  99

  4.9

  100

  4.9

  102

  5.4

  156

  8.0

  West Midlands

  446

  6.2

  341

  4.7

  327

  4.5

  319

  4.3

  West Yorkshire

  232

  4.5

  198

  4.0

  209

  4.3

  223

  4.6

  Wiltshire

  63

  5.4

  55

  4.8

  66

  5.9

  65

  5.8

  Total for all 43 forces

  6,657

  5.3

  6,104

  4.9

  5,948

  4.9

  5,814

  4.7

  Total including secondments

  6,657

  5.2

  6,104

  4.8

  5,948

  4.8

  5,814

  4.6

  1 Retirements include ordinary and medical retirements

  Police officer recruitment: number and proportion of total strength

  April 1997-March 1998

  April 1998-March 1999

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-March 2001

  Police force

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  138

  4.6

  142

  4.7

  104

  3.5

  184

  6.1

  Bedfordshire

  49

  4.5

  36

  3.5

  37

  3.6

  82

  7.9

  Cambridgeshire

  65

  5.0

  46

  3.6

  23

  1.9

  134

  10.3

  Cheshire

  94

  4.6

  112

  5.4

  36

  1.8

  108

  5.4

  City of London

  34

  4.1

  18

  2.3

  0

  0.0

  29

  4.1

  Cleveland

  71

  4.8

  0

  0.0

  68

  4.8

  71

  5.0

  Cumbria

  79

  6.8

  34

  3.0

  23

  2.1

  31

  3.0

  Derbyshire

  66

  3.7

  52

  3.0

  79

  4.4

  103

  5.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  179

  6.0

  57

  2.0

  74

  2.6

  172

  5.9

  Dorset

  129

  9.8

  44

  3.4

  87

  6.7

  100

  7.4

  Durham

  123

  8.1

  106

  6.8

  51

  3.3

  83

  5.2

  Dyfed Powys

  42

  4.2

  50

  4.9

  54

  5.2

  58

  5.5

  Essex

  124

  4.2

  96

  3.3

  93

  3.3

  181

  6.2

  Gloucestershire

  34

  3.1

  64

  5.8

  59

  5.3

  89

  7.6

  Greater Manchester

  437

  6.3

  217

  3.2

  286

  4.2

  389

  5.6

  Gwent

  39

  3.2

  61

  4.9

  82

  6.5

  63

  4.9

  Hampshire

  201

  5.8

  117

  3.4

  152

  444

  191

  5.6

  Hertfordshire

  78

  4.5

  79

  4.6

  167

  9.5

  110

  5.7

  Humberside

  88

  4.4

  48

  2.4

  91

  4.7

  98

  5.1

  Kent

  119

  3.7

  120

  3.7

  174

  5.4

  269

  8.1

  Lancashire

  135

  4.1

  55

  1.7

  99

  3.1

  164

  5.0

  Leicestershire

  118

  6.0

  88

  4.4

  67

  3.4

  108

  5.3

  Lincolnshire

  61

  5.1

  6

  0.5

  34

  3.0

  119

  9.9

  Merseyide

  181

  4.3

  234

  5.6

  41

  1.9

  178

  4.4

  Metropolitan police

  1,200

  4.6

  1,629

  6.2

  994

  3.9

  1,276

  5.1

  Norfolk

  84

  5.9

  28

  2.9

  43

  3.1

  90

  6.3

  North Wales

  48

  3.4

  59

  4.2

  79

  5.6

  119

  8.2

  North Yorkshire

  65

  4.8

  17

  1.3

  10

  0.8

  66

  5.1

  Northamptonshire

  57

  4.9

  29

  2.5

  19

  1.7

  93

  8.0

  Northumbria

  275

  7.3

  233

  6.1

  121

  3.2

  226

  5.9

  Nottinghamshire

  111

  4.8

  22

  1.9

  104

  4.7

  134

  5.9

  South Wales

  168

  5.6

  183

  6.1

  124

  4.2

  286

  9.1

  South Yorkshire

  145

  4.6

  130

  4.1

  128

  4.0

  183

  5.7

  Staffordshire

  239

  10.4

  31

  1.4

  22

  1.0

  62

  2.9

  Suffolk

  76

  6.4

  57

  4.8

  17

  1.5

  65

  5.7

  Surrey

  116

  7.2

  138

  .8.3

  183

  10.3

  240

  11.6

  Sussex

  135

  4.5

  109

  3.8

  101

  3.6

  206

  7.2

  Thames Valley

  276

  7.3

  153

  4.1

  190

  5.1

  237

  6.4

  304W 305W

  Police officer recruitment: number and proportion of total strength

  April 1997-March 1998

  April 1998-March 1999

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-March 2001

  Police force

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Warwickshire

  67

  7.3

  50

  5.5

  59

  6.6

  85

  9.2

  West Mercia

  79

  3.9

  109

  5.4

  15

  0.8

  92

  4.7

  West Midlands

  444

  6.2

  466

  6.4

  255

  3.5

  553

  7.4

  West Yorkshire

  203

  3.9

  17

  0.3

  61

  1.3

  212

  4.4

  Wiltshire

  71

  6.1

  49

  4.3

  29

  2.6

  75

  6.7

  Total for all 43 forces

  6,543

  5.2

  5,391

  4.4

  4,535

  3.7

  7,414

  6.0

  Total including secondments

  6,543

  5.2

  5,391

  4.3

  4,535

  3.7

  7,414

  5.9

  1 Retirements include ordinary and medical retirements

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has collated on the number of court orders obtained by local authorities to evict travellers from public parks and open spaces in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [32465]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures for the number of court orders obtained by local authorities to evict travellers from public parks and open spaces are not collated centrally.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  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 solicitor. [32480]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The results of the Commission's latest six-monthly survey to 30 September 2001, showed that 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 if he will advise the Criminal Cases Review Commission to give priority to cases of women crown court conviction applicants who are in custody and have young children. [32497]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Commission's priority-ranking group already receives and considers requests from such applicants.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women convicted of murder are the subject of applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [32501]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not collect routinely the statistics requested, and they could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However following the introduction of an electronic case database from 1 April 2001 recent data is available. During 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001, the Criminal Cases Review Commission received five applications concerned with women convicted of murder.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions of(a) men and (b) women there have been for offences involving domestic violence in the last 12 months. [32122]
  306W
  Beverley Hughes
  Offences involving domestic violence are not identifiable on the Home Office Court Proceedings database as no specific statute covers such offences.

  Prosecutions brought might range from common assault to homicide depending on the level of violence, and as the circumstances of the offences for which prosecutions are brought are not collected centrally, offences involving domestic violence cannot be distinguished from other offences within these categories.

  Despite the lack of centrally collated statistics, there are justified concerns that incidents of domestic violence too often fail to result in prosecutions. We have introduced a number of measures to reduce the attrition rate for domestic violence offences and to bring more offenders to justice.

  These include: Guidance for prosecutors issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in November and to police in 2000 encouraging them to work closely together to enhance evidence gathering, reducing the reliance on the victim's evidence. A number of the Crime Reduction Programme Violence Against Women projects are supporting women through the Criminal Justice System and aiming to empower women to use both civil and criminal remedies. The Metropolitan police service and Crown Prosecution Service are examining a number of domestic violence homicides that have taken place, in an attempt to establish where agency responses might be improved to prevent similar tragedies, and any lessons to be learned by the Criminal Justice System. Our attrition target is to bring 100,000 more offenders to justice. Given that domestic violence accounts for almost a quarter of all violent crime, a significant number of those offenders will be domestic violence perpetrators.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to force sex offenders to notify the authorities if they are travelling abroad for eight days or less; and if he will make a statement. [32137]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Sex Offenders (Notice Requirement) (Foreign Travel) Regulations 2001 made under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, require sex offenders subject to the requirements of the
  307W
  Sex Offenders Act 1997 (the register) to notify the police if they intend to travel abroad for a period of eight days or longer. These came into force on 1 June 2001.

  The qualifying period for notification of travel abroad was the subject of discussion during the review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The review included representatives of the police, probation and social services, and children's charities. The conclusion reached was that a qualifying period shorter than eight days would result in an unwieldy, unresponsive and consequently less effective, system for the police to administer.

  We will be keeping the effectiveness of the Sex Offenders Act under review over the years to come but we have no plans to change this aspect of the system at this stage.

  The United Kingdom remains one of only four countries which has a register of sex offenders and one of only two which requires registered sex offenders to notify travel abroad.

  The number of defendants convicted at all courts for offences relating to child pornography England and Wales 20001

  Offence

  Statute

  Total convicted

  Possessing obscene material for gain

  Obscene Publications Act 1959 s.2 as amended by the Obscene Publications Act, 1964 sec.1

  81

  Take or to make indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children

  Protection of Children Act 1978 sections 1, 6 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sec. 84

  218

  Possession of an indecent photograph, or pseudo-photograph, of a child

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1988 sec. 160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 secs. 84(4) and 86(1)

  77

  1 Staffordshire police force were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates' courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust at a detailed level and so are excluded from this table.

  Policies and Actions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Cynon Valley constituency, the effects on the Cynon Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [27856]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office is working with individuals and communities to build a safe, just and tolerant society enhancing opportunities for all and in which rights and responsibilities go hand in hand and the protection and security of the public are maintained and enhanced. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office annual report 2000–2001, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime is contained in the publication: "Recorded Crime, England and Wales, 12 months to 31 March 2001", can also be found in the Library.

  These statistics provide information for six common offences down to CDRP (Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships) and BCU (Basic Command Units) level. The figure for total recorded crime is only provided at police force level and so covers South Wales police as a whole. Figures for March 1997 compared to March 2001

  Child Pornography
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions by courts in the United Kingdom there have been for the(a) production and (b) distribution of child pornography material in the last 12 months. [32121]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Offences of producing or distributing pornography are not directly identifiable on the Home Office Court Proceedings database. The available information, relating to possessing, taking or making indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or for possessing obscene material for gain under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, is shown in the table. These statistics relate to England and Wales in 2000. Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  show that South Wales police had seen the two biggest falls in overall recorded crime, of 26 per cent., of any police force in England and Wales.

  A number of Home Office initiatives funded under the Crime Reduction Programme will have a specific impact on crime levels in the Cynon Valley. Many of the Crime Reduction Programme projects and other funding streams listed benefit the Rhondda Cynon Taff unitary authority and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership that cover Cynon Valley and the other two valleys that make up the Rhondda Cynon Taff area:

  Crime Reduction Programme
  Targeted Policing Initiative: A multi-agency project, liaising with five children's homes in the Rhondda Cynon Taff area, to tackle absenteeism, the development of criminal behaviour and vulnerability of youngsters—£500,000.
  Violence Against Women: a £11,706 domestic violence project in Rhondda Cynon Taff.
  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV): A total of £725,405 has been awarded to six CCTV projects in Rhondda Cynon Taff. Three of these are specific to the Cynon Valley area; Aberdare Town Centre project—£175,000; a Hirwaun project covering a residential area, car parks and community facilities—£79,105 and £31,500 for a residential area and shops project in Penywaun.

  Other Funding Streams
  Under the "Small Retailers in Deprived Areas" initiative, £30,000 has been awarded to a Rhondda Cynon Taff scheme of which seven shops in the Cynon Valley area will receive a share. In addition, the Rhondda Cynon Taff Crime and Disorder Reduction

  309W
  Partnership have had £201,200 made available to them under the Communities Against Drugs Initiative, and £30,036 under the Partnership Development Fund.

  Police Numbers in South Wales
  Police numbers in the South Wales police are have also increased since 1997. On 30 September 2001 the force had 3,241 police officers. This is a record number of officers and 265 more than the force had in March 1997. The deployment of resources to Cynon Valley and other parts of the South Wales police area is an operational matter for the Chief Constable. Civilian support staff in South Wales on 30 September was 1, 268–63 more than in March 1997.
  Further information on the Home Office and its policies is published on its website. (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  Hacking
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in 2001 attempts were made to gain unauthorised access to computers in his Department by hacking; and of those how many were successful. [32739]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: No cases of computer hacking were detected in 2001.

  Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have finished their basic training course and are waiting a start date; and if he will make a statement. [33588]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that no police officers who have completed their basic training course are kept waiting for a date to return to their force.

  Lost/stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [34211]

  Angela Eagle
  The following items valued at less than £50 each have been reported as lost or stolen from the Home Department in the last four years.

  Home Office—items valued at less than £50 each which have been reported stolen or lost

  Description

  Amount

  2000–01

  HMPS—Fraudulent obtaining of medication

  £33.12

  HMPS—Theft of prisoners music cassettes

  £9.00

  HMPS—Dressing gown missing

  £25.00

  HMPS—Watch missing from property

  £15.00

  HMPS—Theft of prisoners property from cell

  £12.32

  Stolen magazine

  £3.30

  HMPS—Stolen phonecard

  £5.00

  HMPS—Canteen bag went missing, later found empty with phone cards missing

  £16.00

  HMPS—Inmate's canteen stolen

  £14.80

  1999–2000

  HMPS—Theft of cash

  £40.00

  Use of Agency Fuel card to obtain petrol

  £40.00

  1998–99

  HMPS—Missing telephone/answer machine

  Cleland House

  £25.00

  310W

  Home Office—items valued at less than £50 each which have been reported stolen or lost

  Description

  Amount

  1997–98

  Computer memory stolen

  £30.00

  Computer mouse missing

  £22.00

  Keyboard and mouse missing

  £40.00

  Spouses (Permanent Residence Applications)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to process permanent residence applications for spouses of UK residents is; and what the average time is in each quarter since January 1997. [33970]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that there are no published data on decision times for individual types of settlement applications. Our aim is to decide all straightforward applications within three weeks. Due to the exceptionally high number of applications received in 2001, especially in recent months, and process changes which are being introduced to improve our longer term performance, it is at present taking up to seven weeks to decide an application. We are working to reduce this to three weeks as soon as possible.

  Policy Checklist
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of his Department's policy checklist in the Library; and what status this checklist has in the decision making process of the Department. [33632]

  Angela Eagle
  I am placing a copy of the policy development checklist in the Library. The checklist is available to Home Office staff on the Department's intranet site and aims to promote good practice and offer practical advice on how best to develop and deliver policy successfully.

  Fundamentalist Audio Tapes
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take steps to prevent the further sale, distribution and copying of the audio tapes, `No peace with the Jews', 'History repeats itself' and, 'Jihad'; and if he will make a statement; [34065]

  (2) if he will make a statement about what action he proposes to take concerning the audio tape, No peace with the Jews, and its producer, details of whom have been supplied to him. [34093]

  Angela Eagle
  It is an offence under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 to incite racial hatred, including through the distribution, showing or playing of recorded material which is threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. Part III also includes a power of forfeiture of written or recorded material where a person has been convicted of an offence of inciting racial hatred.

  In the first instance it is the responsibility of the police to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation and that of the Crown Prosecution

  311W
  Service to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. The Metropolitan police are investigating the allegations regarding these audiotapes.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the victim support network; and if he will encourage local authorities to assist the scheme financially and provide further financial assistance to the service. [33751]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Since 1997 we have more than doubled the Home Office grant to Victim Support, to £25 million per annum. This has enabled them to develop and extend the work done by their existing community based schemes and to replicate in magistrates courts the excellent witness support service already provided at all Crown court centres.
  It is for local authorities to decide what their spending priorities are and whether and to what extent they feel able to fund the Victim Support schemes in their area.

  Asylum Seekers (Kosovo)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of people from Kosovo who are claiming political asylum in the United Kingdom. [34038]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that it is not possible to identify separately Kosovars within the available statistics for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). FRY is comprised of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro but the majority of FRY applications are thought to be from Kosovars.

  Information on the number of applications for asylum lodged by nationals of FRY between January 1996 and September 2001 is shown in the table.

  Applications1,2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom (UK) from nationals of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), excluding dependants, January 1996 to September 2001

  Period

  Applications

  1996

  400

  1997

  1,865

  1998

  7,395

  1999

  11,465

  20003

  6,070

  January—September 20013

  2,330

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000.

  3 Provisional figures.

  The number of asylum applications from nationals of FRY which are currently awaiting initial decision on their asylum applications, and the number awaiting the outcome of appeal determinations, is not available, and would be available only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files. Information on asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will present data for the final quarter of 2001, and will be available from 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many voluntary sports clubs are registered with the Charity Commission, broken down by nation and region of the United Kingdom. [34341]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission, as the Government Department that registers charities in England and Wales. The chief Charity Commissioner will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to police forces on the prosecution of individuals who fail to pay road fund licence. [25138]

  Mr. Denham
  Responsibility for taking action in possible cases of Vehicle Excise Duty evasion lies with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The role of the police is mainly limited to notifying the DVLA of suspected untaxed vehicles which have been seen either parked or driven on public roads. Police and traffic wardens undertake such detection and reporting as part of their day to day duties. During 2000–01 the police and traffic wardens sent over 1.5 million VED offence reports to the DVLA. DVLA in turn took successful action against 727,000 evaders, resulting in the recovery of £85 million.

  Property Offences
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the prison population is made up of those convicted of property offences. [34914]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The proportion of the prison population made up of those convicted of property offences, that is burglary, robbery, arson, taking and driving away, handling stolen goods, criminal damage and other thefts is 39 per cent.

  Young Offenders
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the five most common offences were for which young offenders were brought to trial in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [34006]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information relates to persons aged 10 and under 18 proceeded against at magistrates courts in England and Wales and is for 2000. Data for 2001 will be published in the autumn.

  The five most numerous offence categories are:

  Offence proceeded against

  Number

  Theft from shops

  11,907

  Using vehicle uninsured against third party risks

  10,664

  Summary criminal or malicious damage

  10,437

  Common assault and battery

  7,307

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  6,043

  Criminal Defence Service
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the Government's plans for pilots for a criminal defence service; and if he will make a statement. [31440]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  I believe that this question refers to the pilots of the Public Defender Service (PDS). The Criminal Defence Service is the name of the overall scheme through which
  314W
  criminal defence services are provided. It covers a variety of flexible ways of providing services, of which the PDS is one, in order to achieve quality and value for money.

  PDS offices opened in Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Swansea and Birmingham on 14, 17 and 21 May and 11 July 2001 respectively. As part of the first phase of the PDS pilot, the Legal Services Commission plans to open a fifth office in Cheltenham in April 2002 and a sixth shortly after that. The location of the sixth office has yet to be settled. A programme of research will begin shortly, which will evaluate the PDS and make recommendations for its future.

HEALTH

  Overseas Treatment (Lütterhaus Hospital)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the total cost to the NHS of the knee replacements to be carried out on three patients from West Sussex at the Lütterhaus Hospital in Germany in February, including travel costs and accommodation costs; and if he will make a statement. [32876]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The information requested is commercially confidential.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government plans to fund air ambulances throughout Britain once their funding from the Automobile Association finishes. [34964]

  Ms Blears
  We are currently in discussion with air ambulance charities.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expected cost to public funds is of ensuring that by the end of 2005 the maximum waiting time for an out-patient appointment will be three months and for in-patients, six months. [16252]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health expenditure for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be determined as part of the 2002 spending review, which is due to conclude in summer 2002.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the state of preparedness from primary care groups becoming primary care trusts. [19291]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: There are currently 164 primary care trusts in operation.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) and total income by trust for acute specialities NHS hospitals, England 2000–01

  Trust

  Acute care FCEs

  Total Income £000

  Royal Surrey County hospital NHS trust

  36,764

  87,492

  East Somerset NHS trust

  29,428

  54,053

  Bradford hospitals NHS trust

  94,277

  142,126

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary

  73,303

  108,071

  Southend hospital NHS trust

  71,547

  112,589

  The Royal National Orthopaedic NHS trust

  7,684

  43,222

  North Middlesex hospital NHS trust

  36,117

  86,050

  The Hillingdon hospital NHS trust

  31,279

  95,657

  Kingston hospital NHS trust

  45,269

  107,302

  Taunton and Somerset NHS trust

  57,133

  135,489

  Royal National hospital for rheumatic diseases

  2,355

  10,352

  West Dorset general hospitals NHS trust

  40,111

  70,497

  Nuffield Orthopaedic NHS trust

  9,651

  44,793

  Walsall hospitals NHS trust

  44,018

  88,293

  Wirral hospital NHS trust

  74,999

  142,159

  The Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool NHS trust

  12,078

  41,454

  Royal Liverpool childrens NHS trust

  27,186

  78,628

  Christie hospital NHS trust

  32,498

  68,428

  Bedford hospitals NHS trust

  36,509

  69,794

  Ealing hospital NHS trust

  27,373

  67,137

  Luton and Dunstable hospital NHS trust

  46,194

  85,936

  South Tees Acute hospitals NHS trust

  100,838

  173,604

  316W
  A further 136 proposals have been approved with 19 more proposals being considered to become operational on 1 April 2002.

  The estimated total of PCTs operating from 1 April 2002 is expected to be around 300.

  The process for approving applications for primary care trust status is contained in Health Service Circular 1999–167. In approving applications to establish PCTs my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that four key criteria are met. These are:

  The benefits of what will be achieved.

  The degree of support for the proposal.

  The 'fitness' of the proposed organisation to deliver.

  The impact on other organisations.

  These criteria must be demonstrated in the PCT proposal. PCTs are established after full and open consultation locally, giving every opportunity for views and concerns to be expressed and addressed.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average(a) income of and (b) number of patients treated by an acute hospital in England and Wales was in the last financial year. [15290]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available at hospital level. Figures have been provided on a trust basis.

  The table shows figures for acute trusts in England in 2000–01. The hospital activity data are based on finished consultant episodes of in-patient care for acute consultant specialties; this does not represent the number of individual patients treated as this information is not available.

  The income data show the total income for each trust as a whole (for example, not only acute care). For each trust, total income has been given, but the primary care trust values are 'gross operating costs' because they do not show income in the same way as trusts, however, they are still comparable.
  317W

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) and total income by trust for acute specialities NHS hospitals, England 2000–01

  Trust

  Acute care FCEs

  Total Income £000

  Sheffield children's hospital

  17,963

  41,712

  Royal United hospital Bath NHS trust

  60,389

  104,609

  Poole hospitals NHS trust

  50,849

  88,601

  Milton Keynes general hospital

  34,141

  63,661

  Basildon and Thurrock general hospital

  50,257

  101,882

  Eastbourne hospitals NHS trust

  42,269

  107,619

  Frimley Park hospital NHS trust

  52,738

  89,787

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals NHS trust

  77,220

  101,983

  Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust

  99,638

  146,996

  Aintree hospitals NHS trust

  69,981

  132,185

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS trust

  4,444

  22,318

  Liverpool women's hospital NHS trust

  16,173

  39,762

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS trust

  5,997

  26,249

  Wrightington hospital NHS trust

  7,911

  19,609

  Scunthorpe and Goole hospitals NHS trust

  41,383

  66,522

  Barnsley District general hospital

  49,593

  71,976

  Rotherham general hospitals NHS trust

  40,062

  91,882

  Chesterfield and north Derbyshire

  54,048

  76,668

  West Middlesex University NHS trust

  25,126

  73,519

  Bromley hospitals NHS trust

  50,346

  140,982

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  58,568

  129,296

  Papworth hospital NHS trust

  14,736

  46,924

  Peterborough hospitals NHS trust

  56,493

  89,107

  James Paget hospital NHS trust

  42,430

  82,909

  Ispwich hospital NHS trust

  59,420

  107,090

  West Suffolk hospital NHS trust

  48,482

  70,753

  Brighton Healthcare NHS trust

  51,702

  141,724

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS trust

  37,545

  66,510

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust

  53,922

  101,580

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust

  84,202

  140,492

  Portsmouth hospitals NHS trust

  111,296

  232,522

  Royal Berkshire and Battle hospitals NHS trust

  62,504

  136,950

  Lewisham hospital NHS trust

  33,282

  97,484

  Mayday healthcare NHS trust

  36,154

  101,456

  South Warwickshire general hospital

  44,704

  59,806

  Mid Staffordshire general hospital

  45,414

  97,295

  North Staffordshire hospital NHS trust

  119,431

  193,823

  Burton hospitals NHS trust

  39,110

  67,068

  Good Hope hospital NHS trust

  47,180

  71,544

  Countess of Chester hospital NHS trust

  52,154

  79,393

  The Kings Mill centre for health

  66,338

  74,933

  Plymouth hospitals NHS trust

  97,750

  188,822

  Walsgrave hospitals NHS trust

  85,153

  205,640

  Warrington hospital NHS trust

  51,422

  78,899

  Whittington hospital NHS trust

  35,288

  85,941

  The Princess Royal hospital NHS trust

  29,059

  43,770

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic and DH

  7,615

  32,077

  The Royal Wolverhampton hospital

  76,693

  125,448

  Carlisle hospital NHS trust

  36,477

  67,545

  City hospitals Sunderland NHS trust

  74,285

  140,439

  Hereford hospitals NHS trust

  31,636

  52,659

  George Eliot hospital NHS trust

  36,531

  56,785

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS trust

  11,598

  43,232

  City hospital NHS trust

  57,087

  117,877

  Royal Shrewsbury hospitals NHS trust

  53,072

  80,280

  Norfolk and Norwich healthcare NHS trust

  118,136

  156,358

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS trust

  48,045

  111,810

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS trust

  45,670

  62,769

  Blackpool Victoria hospital NHS trust

  76,639

  133,028

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust

  45,539

  91,032

  North Hampshire hospitals NHS trust

  32,431

  85,233

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust

  30,702

  72,379

  Dudley group of hospitals NHS trust

  64,092

  144,195

  Newham Healthcare NHS trust

  37,146

  79,567

  Kettering general hospital NHS trust

  51,488

  92,364

  Northampton general hospital NHS trust

  63,389

  109,332

  Stoke Mandeville hospital NHS trust

  31,223

  70,349

  Great Ormond Street hospital for children NHS trust

  21,822

  132,649

  Moorfields eye hospital NHS trust

  21,638

  43,910

  Medway NHS trust

  41,279

  94,128

  The Queen Victoria hospital NHS trust

  10,162

  22,685

  Worthing and Southlands hospitals NHS trust

  48,673

  84,135

  The Royal East Sussex NHS trust

  36,474

  64,653

  318W 319W

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) and total income by trust for acute specialities NHS hospitals, England 2000–01

  Trust

  Acute care FCEs

  Total Income £000

  The Royal Marsden hospital NHS trust

  30,151

  86,576

  Birmingham children's hospital

  23,441

  91,388

  The Manchester children's hospital

  30,001

  69,378

  Mid Essex hospitals NHS trust

  59,748

  120,239

  The Princess Alexandra hospital

  36,475

  90,535

  Homerton hospital NHS trust

  31,947

  82,002

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS trust

  78,580

  204,824

  Pindersfield and Pontefract hospital

  78,815

  141,434

  Royal Orthopaedic hospital NHS trust

  11,021

  30,200

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust

  24,769

  130,828

  Southern Derbyshire acute hospital

  98,446

  164,053

  Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals NHS trust

  29,604

  111,223

  Morecambe Bay hospitals NHS trust

  72,327

  129,982

  Northwick Park/Central Middlesex

  50,928

  189,457

  Chase Farm Wellhouse NHS trust

  67,975

  152,511

  Epsom/St Helier NHS trust

  70,202

  174,284

  East Kent hospitals NHS trust

  109,905

  247,128

  Southport and Ormskirk NHS trust

  50,136

  86,709

  Hull and East Yorkshire hospital

  110,824

  212,895

  United Lincolnshire hospitals NHS trust

  120,448

  199,080

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust

  70,093

  155,350

  West Hertfordshire hospitals NHS trust

  66,202

  163,440

  Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust

  80,116

  173,566

  The United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust

  82,729

  225,073

  Northern general hospital NHS trust

  61,663

  178,477

  The Royal Free Hampstead hospital

  59,356

  266,340

  Central Manchester healthcare trust

  64,323

  222,543

  Nottingham City hospital NHS trust

  91,768

  186,897

  Central Sheffield University hospital

  96,914

  202,664

  Nottingham University hospital

  84,046

  190,179

  Addenbrooke's NHS trust

  87,612

  217,513

  Southampton University hospital

  95,232

  239,382

  Guy's and St Thomas' NHS trust

  80,448

  403,301

  St Mary's hospital NHS trust

  56,040

  186,056

  St George's Healthcare NHS trust

  61,202

  223,195

  King's Healthcare NHS trust

  56,718

  236,398

  South Manchester University hospitals NHS trust

  83,990

  180,652

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS trust

  51,846

  123,398

  Barts and the London NHS trust

  85,561

  328,379

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University hospital NHS trust

  83,169

  196,874

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS trust

  52,342

  195,039

  The Hammersmith hospitals NHS trust

  67,224

  273,738

  Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust

  178,932

  504,292

  University hospital Birmingham

  70,041

  228,410

  University College London hospitals NHS trust

  58,018

  341,910

  The Newcastle upon Tyne hospital

  149,187

  332,014

  Oxford Radcliffe hospital NHS trust

  102,235

  300,442

  University hospitals of Leicester NHS trust

  181,443

  346,083

  Total

  8,004,613

  18,216,628

  Average

  186,154

  423,643

  Notes:

  Finished consultant episodes data

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one healthcare provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  FCE figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Income data:

  2000–01 income figures remain provisional and are subject to continuing audit by the National Audit Office.

  Source:

  Primary Care Trust Summarisation Schedules 2000–01

  NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 2000–01
  320W

  NICE
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place with(a) representatives of NICE, (b) representatives of patients' groups, (c) representatives of professional groups, (d) representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, (e) representatives of health authorities and trusts and other health organisations as part of the preparatory work in relation to the review of NICE; and if he will make a statement. [20157]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: As part of routine business we have held a number of discussions on this subject, particularly with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the pharmaceutical industry.

  We expect shortly to issue a consultation document on aspects of the NICE appraisal process. The document will be limited in scope, taking account of the review already undertaken in the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry and the current inquiry by the Health Select Committee.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which countries in the EU allow children to be given single inoculations for measles, mumps and rubella. [24263]

  Yvette Cooper
  As far as we are aware, all European Union countries recommend measles, mumps and rubella vaccine as the safest way to protect children.

  We are not aware of any EU country where the health service routinely offer parents a choice of MMR or single vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.

  Like the United Kingdom, EU countries prevent the use of licensed vaccines, including single vaccines.

  NHS Staff (Disciplinary Action)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disciplinary actions took place in 2001 involving NHS staff in allegations of(a) racism and (b) sexism. [24326]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The Department does not routinely collect information regarding the disciplinary proceedings carried out in national health service organisations. Disciplinary action is a matter for local employers. National health service employers have a responsibility to investigate alleged breaches of acceptable standards by staff, and to consider whether any disciplinary action is required as a result of such allegations.

  Traditional Medicines Directive
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact upon the United Kingdom health products industry of the lack of provision in the proposed Traditional Medicines Directive for products which are combinations of herbs with nutrients; [29432]

  (2) what legislative provision he plans to propose to secure the continued availability of products which are
  322W
  combinations of nutrients with herbs but which are (a) not foods and (b) unlikely to fall within the provisions of the forthcoming Traditional Medicines Directive; [29433]

  (3) what recent assessment has been made of how products which are combinations of herbs with nutrients may achieve compliance with the proposed Traditional Medicines Directive. [29522]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Some products containing herbal ingredients and nutrients may currently be sold under food law. Where, however, products containing herbal ingredients and nutrients as active ingredients are classified as medicines, they require a marketing authorisation before being placed on the market. The regulatory position of such products would remain unaffected by the proposals for a directive on traditional herbal medicinal products which have been adopted by the European Commission.

  The Commission's proposals for a directive are, as anticipated, restricted to traditional herbal medicines. Mixtures of herbal and other active ingredients would therefore fall outside the scope of the directive. We will need to give consideration to the criteria for determining the circumstances in which ingredients would be regarded as active.

  The proposed directive contains provision for a later review which would consider the possibility of extending traditional use registrations to other categories of medicinal products. Our current assessment is that an extension of the proposed system for traditional use registrations to other categories of traditionally used medicines would be insufficient to cover a significant proportion of herbal and nutrient combination products. It would require an additional change in European legislation to permit on the market those herbal and nutrient combination products classified as medicines for which neither evidence of traditional use nor efficacy, as required for a marketing authorisation, could be demonstrated. Our current priority remains to secure an effective regulatory regime for traditional herbal remedies.

  Medical Errors
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients within the NHS have(a) died and (b) been injured as a result of user error of medical equipment in each of the last five years. [29776]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The national health service reports incidents involving medical devices to the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) who maintain a database of reported incidents.

  The MDA has successfully promoted the adverse incident reporting system over this period. There has been an increase in the total number of reports received from 5,380 in 1997 to 7,896 in 2001. Therefore, these figures do not necessarily indicate an increase in the number of incidents occurring, rather the results of the strenuous efforts taken by the MDA to improve incident reporting.

  From the MDA's database the number of patients within the NHS that (a) died and (b) been injured as a result of user error of medical equipment in each of the last five years is given in the table.
  323W

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  (a)

  User error incidents involving a fatality

  7

  0

  2

  0

  0

  (b)

  User error incidents involving an injury

  45

  21

  7

  3

  3

  The National Patient Safety Agency will be working closely with the MDA in the reporting and sharing of information on adverse incidents involving medical devices. This collaboration will serve to enhance patient safety by learning from errors involving medical devices and in this way help reduce harm to future patients.

  KPMG
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contracts his Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31319]

  Ms Blears: The Department has six contracts with KPMG for the financial year 2001–02, to date. This includes five small contracts with individual values of £11,720, £1,283, £1,012, £18,898 and £1,499. The sixth is an on-going framework contract, managed by national health service estates on behalf of the Department, for which it is not possible to give a final value but where expenditure to date is £0.97 million.

  Personal Information
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that no personal information about NHS patients will be disclosed by Ministers, and officials acting on their behalf, beyond that which has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the patients themselves, or with their explicit consent. [31381]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Disclosure of personal information is regulated by legislation and, where the information concerned is held in confidence, by common law obligations. In many circumstances it would be unlawful to disclose such information without the consent of the individual concerned unless the information is already in the public domain. Ministers and officials are aware of their responsibilities. However, there may arise circumstances where, in the broader public interest and subject to tests of necessity and proportionality, disclosure is both lawful and appropriate, for example where failure to do so might place others at significant risk.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that no information relating to NHS patients of a sensitive nature, covered by Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998, will be processed other than in accordance with Schedule 3 of that Act. [31380]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Guidance issued by the Department makes it clear that the processing of sensitive patient information must be in accordance with schedules 2 and 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Responsibility for compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 rests with each national health service body or other data controller as defined by that Act.

  Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire Health Authority
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were employed in the NHS in the Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire health authority (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [32687]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by qualification and practice nurses and practitioners (excluding GP retainers) and medical and dental staff working in the Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire health authority area as at 30 September of each year

  Headcount

  Category

  1997

  2000

  All Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting staff

  3,120

  3,620

  Of which:

  Qualified

  2,820

  3,220

  Unqualified

  300

  400

  Practice Nurses

  240

  270

  All Practitioners (excluding GP retainers)1

  310

  330

  Of which:

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)2

  300

  310

  All Medical and Dental Staff3

  540

  670

  1 All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include UPE's, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors(para 52 SFA) and PMS Others. GP retainers were collected for the first time in 1999, in 2000 there were 11 in the Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire health authority area.

  2 Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs) includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs

  3 Excludes Medical Hospital Practitioners and Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are also GPs working part-time in hospitals.

  Notes:

  1. Figures excluded learners and agency staff

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Due to rounding totals currently available.

  4. 2000 figures will be released shortly.

  5. 2001 figures will be released shortly.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical services Statistics.

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list health authority chairmen in England
  and Wales. [31663]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is in the table.

  Health authority

  Existing HA chairs to 31 March 2002

  Cllr. M. Morris

  Salford and Trafford

  Cllr. S. Taylor

  Nottingham

  Cllr. B. Harrison

  Manchester

  Dr. C. Varlaam

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  Dr. J. O'Brien

  Northumberland

  Dr. S. Kay

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  Dr. S. Lawrence

  Leeds

  Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract

  Wakefield

  325W

  Health authority

  Major General R. Keightley

  Dorset

  Miss C. Andrew

  Coventry

  Miss M. Barrett

  Cambridgeshire

  Mr. A. Bullen

  South Lancashire

  Mr. A. Maden

  Bury and Rochdale

  Mr. A. Sexton

  North Essex

  Mr. A. Tolhurst

  North Nottinghamshire

  Mr. A. Wenban-Smith

  Birmingham

  Mr. A. Williamson

  North and East Devon

  Mr. B. Betterton

  North Cumbria

  Mr. C. Creswick

  Gloucestershire

  Mr. D. Fathers

  Doncaster

  Mr. D. Murray

  South Staffordshire

  Mr. F. Hucker

  Oxfordshire

  Mr. F. Ludlow

  Sefton

  Mr. F. Stewart

  East Kent

  Mr. G. Healey

  Leicestershire

  Mr. I. Pirnie

  Morecambe Bay

  Mr. J. Alston

  Norfolk

  Mr. J. Lewis

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  Mr. J. Mills

  Sunderland

  Mr. J. Pitts

  Solihull

  Mr. J. Powell

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Mr. J. Rudd

  South Derbyshire

  Mr. K. Marsh

  Dudley

  Mr. M. Brereton

  North Staffordshire

  Mr. M. Brookes

  South Essex

  Mr. M. O'Riordan

  Sandwell

  Mr. M. Van Der Schalk

  West Surrey

  Mr. N. Humphreys

  North and Mid Hampshire

  Mr. P. Bingham

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  Mr. P. Brokenshire

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  Mr. P. Carr

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  Mr. P. Gillibrand

  Southampton and SW Hants

  Mr. P. Smallridge

  West Kent

  Mr. P. Smith

  Stockport

  Mr. R. Berry

  Bradford

  Mr. R. Lingham

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  Mr. R. Wing

  East Riding

  Mr. S. Cussons

  South Cheshire

  Mr. S. Sharma

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Mr. T. Dowell

  Avon

  Mr. T. Mackriel

  Wolverhampton

  Mr. T. McCabe

  West Pennine

  Mr. T. Waites

  Tees

  Mr. W. Darling

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  Mrs. A. Cook

  North Derbyshire

  Mrs. C. Moore

  Herefordshire

  Mrs. C. Rollinson

  East Surrey

  Mrs. E. Owen

  Shropshire

  Mrs. H. Nellis

  Bedfordshire

  Mrs. J. Barrie

  Somerset

  Mrs. J. Cravos

  Worcestershire

  Mrs. J. Garlick

  Wigan and Bolton

  Mrs. J. Greensmith

  Liverpool

  Mrs. J. Leverton

  South and West Devon

  Mrs. J. Reay

  Kingston and Richmond

  Mrs. J. Spicer

  Suffolk

  Mrs. K. Reade

  East Lancashire

  Mrs. K. Riddle

  Sheffield

  Mrs. L. Liptrott

  North Cheshire

  Mrs. M. Keyworth

  South Humber

  Mrs. M. Oldfield

  Rotherham

  Mrs. M. Pearce

  Wirral

  Mrs. M. Woodcock

  Walsall

  Mrs. N. Giubertoni

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  Mrs. N. Saunders

  West Sussex

  Mrs. P. Acklam

  Barnsley

  Mrs. S. Wrigley

  North Yorkshire

  Mrs. V. Darbyshire

  North West Lancashire

  Ms A. Millett

  Wiltshire

  Ms C. Hay

  Hillingdon

  Ms I. Short

  Buckinghamshire

  Ms J. Hunt

  Camden and Islington

  Ms L. Smith

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Ms M. Saunders

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  Ms S. Young

  Barking and Havering

  Ms T. Letts

  Croydon

  Professor E. Murphy

  East London and The City

  Sir R. Tilt

  Northamptonshire

  326W

  Health authority

  New HA chairs (from 1 April 2002)

  Mr. Ian White

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  Mr. M. Brookes

  Essex

  Mr. S. Francis

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  Mrs. Marcia Saunders

  London North Central

  Professor Elaine Murphy

  London North East

  Miss Jane Kelly

  London North West

  Mrs. Linda Smith

  London South East

  Mr. James Cochrane

  London South West

  Mrs. Judith Greensmith

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  Mrs. Kath Reade

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  Mr. Phillip Smith

  Greater Manchester

  Mr. T. Waites

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  Professor D. Johns

  North and East Yorkshire and North Lines

  Mr. P. Carr

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  Sir Alistair Graham

  West Yorkshire

  Mr. Peter Bingham

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  Miss Kate Lampard

  Kent and Medway

  Mrs. Teri Hawksworth

  Surrey and Sussex

  Mrs. Jane Betts

  Thames Valley

  Mrs. Anthea Millet

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  Mrs. Jane Barrie

  Dorset and Somerset

  Mrs. Judy Leverton

  South West Peninsula

  Sir Richard Tilt

  Leicestershire, Northampton and Rutland

  Mrs. Kathryn Riddle

  South Yorkshire

  Mr. Arthur Sandford

  Trent

  Mrs. Elisabeth Buggins

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  Mr. Michael Brereton

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  Mr. Charles Goody

  Coventry, Warks, Herefordshire and Worcs

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Buckinghamshire health authority area benefited from the hospital travel costs scheme in each year since 1997; and what the total cost was to public funds in each year. [32190]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Complaints
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many written complaints the Buckinghamshire health authority has received concerning treatment received in accident and emergency departments in each year since 1997; [32188]

  (2) how many written complaints by hospital patients have been received by the Buckinghamshire health authority in each year since 1997. [32187]

  Ms Blears
  Information is collected at trust not health authority level. Information on complaints, including accident and emergency services, is contained in "Handling Complaints: Monitoring the NHS Complaints Procedures" statistical report. Copies are available in the Library.

  Assaults
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff employed by the Buckinghamshire health authority were assaulted by patients in each of the last five years; and how many people were successfully prosecuted. [32192]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to improve education of parents and children on dental health; and if he will make a statement. [32688]

  Ms Blears
  Health authorities are responsible for oral health promotion and currently they attach particular importance to ensuring that oral health is covered in initiatives like Sure Start, Health Action Zones and Healthy Living Centres. Last June, to complement this work, we launched our "Brushing for Life" scheme, which targets families with young children in the 21 areas where dental decay is highest. When carrying out developmental checks, health visitors demonstrate good tooth brushing practice and give the families a free pack containing a tube of fluoridated toothpaste, a toothbrush and a leaflet on oral hygiene.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment has been made of the effectiveness of fluoridation schemes; and if he will make a statement. [32689]

  Ms Blears
  The report, "Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation", published by the University of York in October 2000, confirmed that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay, but also identified the need for more good quality research. We have asked the Medical Research Council for advice on how the evidence base might be strengthened and their report is expected in spring 2002.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of staff redundancy packages arising as a consequence of organisational change in the NHS, broken down by region, since 1996. [32138]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold details of staff redundancy costs by region arising as a consequence of organisational change in the national health service.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contracts his Department has had since 1997 with(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture for (i) accountancy, (ii) audit and (iii) consultancy work; and what staff have been seconded (A) to his Department from and (B) from his Department to these firms. [32422]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has let two contracts to Arthur Andersen since 1997 and one very small value contract with Accenture, which ended in February 2001. Records do not indicate whether the contracts were for (i) accountancy, (ii) audit or (iii) consultancy work.

  The Medicines Control Agency has a long-term IT operational support contract with Accenture (and previously with Andersen Consulting).

  The Purchasing and Supply Agency has one long-term contract with Arthur Andersen for audit services, which terminates in March 2002, and has let one short contract with them for consultancy work since 1997. The agency
  328W
  has one current contract with Accenture, for consultancy work, beginning January 2002 and terminating in March 2002.

  Records held centrally in the Department indicate that there have been no secondments between this Department and these firms, in either direction.

  Ambulance Crews (Assaults)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many ambulance crew members had to take sick leave owing to being assaulted while on duty in each of the last 10 years; [33038]

  (2) how many ambulance crew members are on sick leave owing to being assaulted while on duty; [33039]

  (3) how many ambulance crew members were assaulted while on duty in each of the last 10 years. [33040]

  Ms Blears
  Information on level of sickness absence resulting from violence at work, by individual staff group, is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by individual national health service employers. Data on violent incidents and sickness absence involving all staff in the NHS were not collected on a national basis prior to 1998.

  The Department conducted a survey of NHS trusts in England in 1998–99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS trust staff each year. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: "Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The average sickness absence rate for staff directly employed by NHS ambulance trusts in 1999 was 6.6 per cent.

  Stakeholders
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 629W, on the NHS Reform Bill, how he defines the term key local stakeholder. [33528]

  Mr. Hutton
  Stakeholders are identified locally but would be expected to include frontline health community organisations and their local partners, patients and the public. Key stakeholders are likely to include:

  National health service trusts;

  Primary care trusts;

  Strategic health authorities;

  Voluntary organisations;

  Local authorities;

  Patients representatives;

  Professional and staff representatives; and

  Others deemed appropriate in the local context.

  National Alcohol Strategy
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the work on the National Alcohol Strategy commenced; at what stage the work is at present; when it is expected to be published; and if he will make a statement. [33379]
  329W
  Ms Blears
  The White Paper "Our Healthier Nation" (1999) set out that the Government, local organisations, the voluntary sector and the drinks industry would need to take action to successfully tackle alcohol misuse.

  The Department is working on a consultation paper for the strategy which will:

  draw in contributions from the bodies and organisations mentioned;

  review progress to date;

  outline a programme for the future.

  The NHS Plan sets out the timetable for publishing and implementing the strategy. The plan says that the Department will be implementing the strategy by 2004 and we are well on the way to achieving this target.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been appointed by him to official bodies and NDPBs coming under the aegis of his Department in the last three years; and who they were. [33351]

  Ms Blears
  Information on all appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Department's public bodies at 1 April 2001 is included in the Department of Health Public Appointments annual report 2001, copies of which were sent to all hon. Members on 26 January. Copies are also available in the Library. Appointments made to national health service trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts have since 1 April 2001 been the responsibility of the NHS Appointments Commission. Terms of office of those appointed to public bodies vary, but most are for four years.

  Dental Practice Board
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the remit is of the Dental Practice Board; what the objectives of the Dental Practice Board are; who sets the objectives; how the performance of the Dental Practice Board will be monitored; and what the budget of the board is. [32833]

  Ms Blears
  The Dental Practice Board is a statutory NHS body with responsibilities for vetting treatment claims from, and paying remuneration to, dentists providing general dental services and certain personal dental services under the NHS.

  Its objectives are mainly to ensure that payment claims are accurately processed, that dental treatments and payments are monitored for probity and quality, including independent professional scrutiny by dentists employed within its Dental Reference Service, and to provide appropriate information on dental payments and the provision of services. The Secretary of State for Health and the National Assembly for Wales set the objectives of the Dental Practice Board.

  The Department of Health on behalf of the Secretary of State monitors the performance of the Dental Practice Board for Health and by the National Assembly for Wales.
  330W
  The core administrative budget for the Dental Practice Board for the year 2001–02 is:

  £

  Capital

  England

  703,000

  Wales

  37,000

  Revenue

  England

  21,358,000

  Wales

  1,124,000

  NHS Activity Levels
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the activity levels were in the quarter to(a) September 2000 and (b) September 2001 for (i) new attendances at accident and emergency departments, (ii) first out-patient attendances, (iii) general and acute elective hospital spells and (iv) general and acute non-elective spells. [33499]

  Mr. Hutton
  The activity levels for quarter to(a) September 2000 and (b) September 2001 for (i) new attendances at accident and emergency departments, (ii) first outpatient attendances, (iii) general and acute elective hospital spells and (iv) general and acute non-elective spells are outlined in the table.

  Attendances and hospital spells in England

  million

  20001

  20011

  Accident and emergency first attendances

  3,321

  3,341

  General and acute out-patient first attendances

  2,763

  2,795

  Hospital spells—general and acute

  2,282

  2,293

  of which:

  Elective

  1,308

  1,305

  Non-elective

  .974

  .988

  1 July to September

  Diabetes
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the national health service framework for diabetes will receive additional dedicated funding centrally. [33666]

  Jacqui Smith
  Funding for the Diabetes National Service Framework is being considered as part of our spending review, together with other priorities. We shall set milestones in the delivery strategy for the framework, to be published this summer, based upon the resources that will be available.

  Prescribing
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to convene the New Prescribing Advisory Committee. [33501]

  Ms Blears
  We are considering whether to establish a new advisory committee under the Medicines Act 1968 or whether to ask an existing committee, such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines, to make recommendations to Ministers on which prescription only medicines may be prescribed by new groups of prescribers. We are seeking the advice of the Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
  331W
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to announce his timetable for commencing section 63, on the extension of prescribing rights, of the Health and Social Care Act 2001; [33502]

  (2) when he expects to extend prescribing rights to registered optometrists. [33500]

  Ms Blears
  As a first step towards implementing the provisions of section 63 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the Department and the Medicines Control Agency plan to undertake a joint public consultation in the spring on proposals to introduce supplementary prescribing for nurses and pharmacists. We will consider extending prescribing responsibilities to other health professions in the light of developments on these proposals.

  Care Homes (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received from(a) the Laing and Buisson surgery and (b) other sources on the number of (i) care home closures and (ii) care home bed losses on the Isle of Wight in each year since 1997. [33003]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the Department's figures for the number of nursing and residential homes and beds on the Isle of Wight since 1997.

  Residential care homes

  Residential care home beds

  Nursing homes

  Nursing home beds

  1997

  160

  2,115

  17

  457

  1998

  153

  2,124

  17

  456

  1999

  144

  2,073

  17

  445

  2000

  142

  2,092

  15

  391

  2001

  134

  2,010

  13

  356

  Source:

  Department of Health statistics

  The Laing and Buisson Market Survey, 2001, does not break information down by local authority.

  Care Homes (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new care homes have been registered in Portsmouth, South since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [33592]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of new home registrations in Portsmouth is not available. The number of care homes and places for each year since 1997 is given in the tables. Information on residential care and nursing care is not available on consistent boundaries.

  Table 1: Number of residential care homes and places in Portsmouth unitary authority, 1997 to 2001—at 31 March

  Number

  Residential care homes

  Residential care places

  19971

  2—

  2—

  1998

  163

  1,891

  1999

  166

  1,852

  2000

  153

  1,737

  2001

  138

  1,596

  332W

  Table 2: Number of nursing3 care homes and beds in Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority, 1997 to 2001—at 31 March

  Number

  Nursing care homes

  Nursing care beds

  19971

  64

  1,708

  1998

  63

  1,718

  1999

  66

  1,784

  2000

  66

  1,636

  2001

  61

  1,689

  1 The number of homes in 1997 refers to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997

  2 Not available

  3 General and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics Includes dual registered homes, therefore the number of residential homes and nursing homes should not be added together

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people who had been appointed to a position within the NHS by the NHS Appointments Commission had declared a political interest, broken down by political parties in 1997; and what proportion of the total number of appointees this represents for each political party; [33729]

  (2) how many people who have been appointed to a position within the NHS by the NHS Appointments Commission have declared a party political interest. [33730]

  Ms Blears
  Appointments made by the national health service Appointments Commission since it was established on 1 April 2001 until 6 February 2002 are given in the table.

  Health authorities

  National health service trusts

  Primary care trusts

  Total

  Conservative

  1

  15

  16

  32

  Labour

  2

  133

  53

  188

  Liberal Democrat

  2

  23

  11

  36

  Independent

  0

  4

  5

  9

  Other

  0

  3

  0

  3

  No political activity declared

  18

  365

  132

  515

  Total

  23

  543

  217

  783

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds were blocked last year in Oxfordshire owing to a shortage of long term care places. [33586]

  Jacqui Smith
  Management data for year ending 2000–01 suggest that, in relation to patients aged 75 and over, on any given day during 2000–01 Oxfordshire health authority had 22 delayed discharges due to a patient waiting for a nursing or residential care home placement. The health authority had 82 delays in total and a rate of delayed discharge of 13.4 per cent.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the pay of paramedics in the Ambulance Service; and if he will make a statement. [33051]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 29 January 2002, Official Report, columns 282–83W.

  Christchurch Health Centre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken to market the former Christchurch Health Centre premises since March 2001; and if he will make a statement. [33640]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: A marketing exercise for Christchurch Health Centre was conducted in March 2001 and a buyer has been identified. Terms have been agreed subject to contract and valuation report and solicitors have been instructed to complete the sale of the Department's leasehold interest in the property.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people with MS likely to present themselves for assessment by a neurologist with a view to getting a disease-modifying drug on the NHS; and when they will have been assessed. [34116]

  Ms Blears
  All patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), and those with secondary progressive MS in which relapses are the dominant feature, are eligible under the scheme for treatment on the national health service if they meet criteria developed by the Association of British Neurologists (ABN).

  It has been estimated that the total number of patients of England and Wales who fall within the ABN criteria might range between 7,500 and 9,000. The scheme starts to operate on 6 May 2002. It is anticipated that it might take 18 months to initiate all eligible patients on the scheme.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 410W, upon what estimates on the rate of transmission of the smallpox infection his Department has based its containment strategy. [33334]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The Department has commissioned work from the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research regarding transmission rates of smallpox infection. Results of this work were recently published in the scientific journal, Nature. Transmission rates will vary with the particular circumstances of the outbreak of any disease. Estimates of transmission rates range from four to six in a community acquired infection in modern settings, to the higher levels of 10 to 12 in circumstances where the outbreak has taken some time to be fully recognised and appropriate infection controls implemented.

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the London regional office will conclude its review of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust in respect of its management of in-patient waiting lists; and if he will publish the findings. [32665]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Epsom and St. Helier National Health Service Trust validates both its active and suspended list on a regular basis and is confident that their waiting lists are robust and accurate. Further validation was carried out by the trust itself as a result of being identified as having a suspension rate greater than 10 per cent. Epsom and St. Helier was not identified as having adjusted inappropriately its waiting list figures.

  The regional office conducts robust validation of waiting list data from trusts and health authorities including following up any irregularities. The regional office does not consider that there is any reason to review waiting list information at Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust. The Audit Commission has indicated that it will conduct a further audit of trusts whose suspension rate is higher than 10 per cent., as a matter of course.

  Adoption and Fostering
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to propose amendments to the legislation regarding adoption and fostering of children. [34352]

  Jacqui Smith
  An Adoption and Children Bill is currently before Parliament. The Bill will overhaul the outdated Adoption Act 1976 and modernise the existing legal framework for domestic and intercountry adoption. It will implement the proposals in the White Paper, "Adoption: a new approach", published in December 2000, which require primary legislation and underpin our drive to improve the performance of the adoption service and promote greater use of adoption. The Bill will also help deliver our target of an increase of 40 per cent., and if possible 50 per cent., in the number of looked after children who are adopted.

  The Adoption and Children Bill was introduced and published on 19 October 2001. It received its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 29 October and has been considered by a Special Standing Committee. We also intend to develop new regulations and guidance on adoption as part of its programme to implement the Bill.

  We have also introduced new regulations and national minimum standards for fostering, to which all fostering service providers will be required to adhere. The new regulations were introduced in January and we are about to publish the standards. Both will come into force in April. They will apply in all settings, whether council, voluntary or independent, in England, creating a level playing field across the foster care sector and ensuring that service users can be confident that fostering service providers are operating to good standards.

  We are committed to taking action to ensure good quality services and thereby promote better placements for children and young people and reduce the potential of abuse and harm to children in foster care. Introducing a

  335W
  new regime of registration and inspection for fostering providers is an important part of our wider programme to improve services and outcomes for looked after children.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees in(a) his Department and (b) his 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 he will make a statement. [32321]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: No employees1 of (a) the Department and (b) the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them since 1997–98.

  1 his does not include staff brought in on secondment from other organisations who may have private medical insurance provided for them as part of the terms and conditions of their own employers.

  Home Care Packages
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to increase the number of home care packages for the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [34136]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are providing increased resources to local councils to fund personal social services, including the promoting independence grant, the carers grant, and the building care capacity grant, which can be used to increase the number of home care packages for older people. The provision of home care is an important element in the assessments of performance made by the social services inspectorate.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the extra therapists by 2004 announced in the NHS plan will be physiotherapists; [34022]

  (2) how many extra physiotherapists will be trained in each of the years from 2001 to 2004 as part of the NHS plan target to provide 4,450 more therapist and other key health professional training places each year by 2004. [34023]

  Mr. Hutton
  The targets to provide 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals and 4,450 more therapist and other key health professional training places by 2004, have not been broken down into the different professions.

  Between 1999 and 2001 the number of allied health professionals increased by 3,400. A third (1,140) of this total increase was made up of physiotherapists. We would expect this proportion to remain broadly the same across the rest of the plan period.

  Between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 the number of physiotherapy training commissions increased by 127 (9 per cent.) and are projected to rise by a further 91 in 2001–02 (a total increase of 16 per cent. on the 1999–2000 baseline). We are working with work force development confederations to determine the split in the remainder of commissions. Early projections suggest an increase of at least 280 more training commissions for
  336W
  physiotherapy by 2003–04 (the largest increase in the professions covered). Recommendations on the final allocation will be made by the work force numbers advisory board later in the year and will take into account supply and demand information for physiotherapy.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the research which he has commissioned into the health effects of mobile telephones includes transmitter masts. [34641]

  Yvette Cooper
  The mobile telephone health research (MTHR) programme announced recently follows from the publication of a report in May 2000 by an independent expert group on mobile phones under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE on "Mobile Phones and Health". Radio signals from handsets were identified as a research priority because local exposures of people using phones are in general appreciably higher than exposures to the whole body from mobile phone masts. In both cases, however, exposures need to comply with exposure guidelines.

  The first group of proposals agreed for funding by the programme management committee has generally related to the areas of research identified in the Stewart report. Although the main focus of much of the funded research relates to the use of mobile phones, in practice many of the experimental studies will also be valuable in providing evidence on any possible effects on people of exposures to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from mobile phone masts. The agreed programme includes a study on exposures from the newer types of mobile phone masts that are being introduced in urban areas. Details of research now approved for funding are given on the MTHR website at www.mthr.org.uk.

  A second call for proposals was issued last year with a deadline for submission of outline proposals of 25 January 2002. The aim of this call was to extend the range of research being carried out in the MTHR programme. One aim of this call was to seek further proposals for volunteer studies that will examine possible effects of RF exposure of people. The proposals have yet to be considered but it is expected that some of the proposals will be of direct relevance to exposures to RF radiation from mobile phone masts.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for radiotherapy in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust area on(a) 1 January 1999, (b) 1 January 1997, (c) 1 January 2002 and (d) 1 February 2002; and what was the national average at these times. [34670]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  After-surgery Care
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) primary care trusts and (b) acute trusts put in place systems which provide care and support for patients who are discharged from hospital following day surgery. [34072]
  337W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The professional bodies produce clinical guidelines on the provision of a service. The Royal College of Surgeons' "Guidelines for Day Case Surgery" recognises the importance of post-operative care for day case patients. The guidelines set out the importance of meticulously planned post-operative care from the immediate period after the operation, through discharge, and up to the patient being seen for follow-up in out-patients. This system stresses the importance of patients having a number to call in case of a medical problem, and confirms that good communication between the hospital and the person's general practitioner is vital in monitoring the recovery of the patient.

  The departmental adviser on surgery, Professor Ara Darzi of Imperial College, has been asked to examine the use of day surgery over the coming months. Day surgery holds the key to faster, more convenient treatment for patients and less waiting for patients.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the European Directive on dietary supplements. [35053]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are firmly committed to the view that, in the interests of consumer choice, the law should allow food supplements, which are safe and properly labelled to be freely marketed. The proposed directive would establish a framework for harmonised controls on vitamin and mineral content of food supplements and introduce a number of useful labelling measures.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts that will provide digital hearing aids in accordance with his announcement of December 2001. [34999]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health communities interested in joining the modernising hearing aid services project in 2002–03 are about to be invited to declare their interest. Decisions on the sites which best fulfil the selection criteria will be made quickly thereafter and a list of those sites will be announced at that time.

  Medical Education (Investment)
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of each regional NHS budget is earmarked for(a) medical, (b) higher and (c) further education capital investment; what investment in medical education other than new medical schools is being made in England; and if he will make a statement. [35202]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The table shows health authorities' initial revenue resource limit allocations for 2001–02 aggregated on a regional basis. It also shows (a) the revenue sums added to initial allocations to support undergraduate medical education (the Service Increment for Teaching—SIFT) and postgraduate medical education (the Medical and Dental Education Levy—MADEL) and (b) capital made available in 2001–02 to support the increase in medical student numbers recommended by the Medical Workforce
  338W
  Advisory Committee in 1997. Medical education at universities is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council.

  £000

  Region

  2001–021

  SIFT

  MADEL

  SIFT Capital

  Northern and Yorkshire

  4,899,449

  48,257

  106,061

  0

  Trent

  3,789,888

  64,223

  81,939

  308

  Eastern

  3,689,071

  17,611

  70,261

  2,358

  London

  6,043,669

  212,010

  194,932

  0

  South East

  6,012,626

  35,397

  126,850

  0

  South West

  3,556,776

  18,970

  72,780

  2,046

  West Midlands

  3,906,084

  26,425

  80,091

  1,731

  North West

  5,259,820

  63,486

  104,432

  1,414

  1 Initial revenue allocation

  In 1998 we accepted the main recommendation of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee that medical school intake should be increased by about 1,000 places per annum. The NHS Plan announced an increase of up to 1,000 further places by 2005. By 2005 the annual intake to medical schools in England is planned to have increased by 2,145 over 1997 levels. Of these new places 1,225 will be situated in existing medical schools and 920 in new medical schools and centres.

  Nursing and Midwifery Student (Funding)
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of nursing and midwifery students in the latest year for which figures are available had no access to student loans, university hardship funds and NHS hardship grants as a result of being on diploma courses. [35203]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Approximately 87 per cent. of national health service-funded students currently studying nursing and midwifery are undertaking the diploma level programme. Whilst these students are not eligible for student loans, university hardship funds or NHS hardship grants, they receive a higher level of basic bursary than those studying at degree level. The financial support available to each student is dependent on the individual's circumstances. Overall, while the nature and source of funding differs, the overall package of support available to the two groups is comparable.

  Midwifery and Nursing
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government plans to take to bring about parity between diploma and degree students of midwifery and nursing. [35204]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The diploma and degree in nursing and midwifery are courses with different academic attainment that both lead to eligibility to register as a qualified nurse or midwife. We have no plans to change the two different routes of nurse training.

  Medical Education
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government takes to encourage and finance the continuing professional development and education of consultants and GPs. [35205]
  339W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The General Medical Council places a duty on all doctors to keep their knowledge and skills up to date throughout their working lives. National health service budgets include provision for investment in continuing professional development for all NHS staff groups. For general practitioners this takes the form of a postgraduate education allowance of up to £2,700 which is payable annually to general medical service GPs undertaking accredited training to further their continuing professional development (CPD). A similar allowance is payable to personal medical service GPs through their contractual arrangements.

  We are also taking steps to encourage and formalise participation in CPD through the introduction of appraisal systems for NHS doctors. A new system of appraisal for GPs is to be introduced this year. An appraisal system for hospital consultants was introduced from April 2001. Both systems are professionally driven and led. GP appraisal will be organised and funded by primary care trusts but the appraisals themselves will be undertaken by suitably trained GPs. Consultant appraisal is organised and funded by the NHS employer but the appraisals themselves will be undertaken by suitably trained doctors. The objective of appraisal is to support the doctor concerned in identifying his/her personal and professional development needs and providing a personal development plan to address them which will in turn focus the doctor's continuing professional development over the year to come.

  An additional £20 million is being invested in 2001–02 to support and encourage the development of all health professionals, including consultants and GPs, with more to come in the next couple of years—a further £30 million has been agreed for CPD activity in 2002–03.

  Breast Cancer
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those(a) health authorities and (b) hospital trusts which have not achieved the Government target for all breast cancer patients to wait no longer than one month between diagnosis and treatment by December 2001; [34691]

  (2) how many breast cancer patients in each of the last 12 months waited more than one month between diagnosis and treatment, broken down by health authority area; and what the total was in February 1997. [34692]

  Yvette Cooper [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The data requested are not available. The target of a maximum wait of one month from diagnosis to first definitive treatment for breast cancer came into effect on 31 December 2001. Central monitoring began on 1 January 2002 and data will be published later in the year.

  Dentists
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have opted out of the NHS in each year since 1997. [34790]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Available information covers the number of dentists leaving the general dental service (GDS) in England and is shown in the table for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01.
  340W
  The number of leavers covers all reasons for leaving the GDS including final retirement from dental work, moves to other parts of the national health service and dentists taking career breaks as well as those who left to practice solely privately. Figures from 1998–99 onwards are inflated by the transfer of some dentists from the GDS to some personal dental service (PDS) pilots. The total number of dentists includes principals on a health authority list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  General dental service (GDS): Number of dentists who left the GDS from 1996–97 to 2000–01, England

  Year

  Principals

  Assistants

  Vocational trainees

  Total

  1996–97

  692

  64

  78

  834

  1997–98

  738

  85

  77

  900

  1998–991

  761

  106

  105

  972

  1999–2-001

  780

  157

  95

  1,032

  2000–011

  875

  181

  136

  1,192

  1 Figures affected by the transfer of some dentists from the GDS to the PDS

  Tobacco
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the harm caused to nicotine users of(a) using oral tobacco and (b) smoking cigarettes; [34906]

  (2) what advice he received from (a) the Chief Medical Officer, (b) the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health and (c) other public health experts regarding the public health implications of the ban on oral tobacco products agreed in Article 8 of EU Directive 2001/37/EC. [34904]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Tobacco use is harmful to human health, both in oral forms and when smoked. Smoking tobacco is associated with various cancers, lung disease, cardiovascular disease and peptic ulcers. There are fewer data on which to appraise the full range of health risk from oral tobacco but it is associated with development of cancer in humans, notably mouth cancers. Oral use of tobacco produces blood nicotine levels, which are comparable to those of cigarette smokers.

  The Department has not sought advice from the Chief Medical Officer or the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health on the public health implications specific to the ban on oral tobacco products agreed in Article 8 of European Union Directive 2001/37/EC. In the United Kingdom in general there is no recent tradition of oral tobacco consumption but there is a tradition of use of oral products among some ethnic minority communities. The Department has a programme of work on tobacco use in ethnic minorities, which will address this issue with appropriate expert advice.

  Care Home Beds (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement in the change on the number of care home beds in the Wycombe constituency since 1997. [35342]
  341W
  Ms Blears
  Information for the Wycombe constituency is not centrally available. The number of residential and nursing care homes and beds in Buckinghamshire is shown in the table.

  Number of residential and nursing care homes and beds in Buckinghamshire1, 1997 to 2001—at 31 March

  Residential care homes

  Nursing care homes, hospitals and clinics

  Homes

  Places

  Homes

  Places

  19972

  134

  2,438

  55

  1,735

  1998

  163

  3,253

  57

  2,054

  1999

  170

  3,383

  55

  1,966

  2000

  178

  3,399

  57

  1,896

  2001

  172

  3,426

  60

  1,951

  1 Buckinghamshire as defined prior to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1997. Figures for 1998 onwards are for the redefined Buckinghamshire county council plus Milton Keynes unitary authority.

  2 The number of nursing homes and beds in 1997 refers to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many episodes of in-patient care were purchased by the NHS in London in the independent mental health sector in the last year for which figures are available. [35090]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8 January 2002, Official Report, column 663W.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what work has taken place on child and adolescent mental health services for the Children's National Service Framework; [35086]

  (2) if he will list the meetings scheduled for the External Working Group on child and adolescent mental health services in the Children's National Service Framework; and when its work is expected to be complete; [35084]

  (3) pursuant to the answer of 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 674W, on mental health, when the first meeting between his Department and the Department for Education and Skills to develop the mental health module of the Children's National Service Framework is scheduled to take place. [35230]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The first two meetings of the child and adolescent mental health External Working Group of the Children's National Service Framework have been set for 5 March and 24 April. The initial meeting will be primarily concerned with scoping the programme of work for the group. We envisage there will be at least two further meetings of the group this year. The Department for Education and Skills will be represented at a senior level on the group.

  The module on acute health services is scheduled to report to Ministers later this year the others will follow thereafter.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 750W, on mental health, how much
  342W
  capital expenditure has been profiled in respect to the DSPD unit at (a) Rampton and (b) Broadmoor, and, in each case, when it is profiled to be spent. [35231]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: New dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) persons units at Rampton and Broadmoor will deliver 140 places for DSPD persons by 2004. These are complex schemes, involving major innovations both in design, and in the approach to service delivery.

  At Rampton the profiled capital spend is £20.7 million, of which £500,000 will be spent by the end of this financial year 2001–02. The remainder will be spent in 2002–03 and 2003–04. The unit is planned to be completed in 2003, and to open in the autumn of 2003.

  Work on the unit at Broadmoor is at an earlier stage of development, and work to profile the capital spend is in hand. However, it is on target to open in 2004.

  Clinical Depression
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) adults, (b) children and young persons and (c) adults over 65 years have clinical depression at the latest date for which figures are available. [35082]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 January 2002, Official Report, columns 663–64W.

  Tilt Report
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the first patient to move out of a hospital as a result of the Tilt report. [35079]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Some patients have already moved into placements that have been partially funded from the money provided as a result of the Tilt report. The Tilt funding represents a contribution towards the achievement of the NHS Plan commitment to move up to 400 inappropriately placed patients out of the high security hospitals by 2004 but is not intended to cover the full costs.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he issues on the circumstances in which an air ambulance is more appropriate than its terrestrial equivalent for the transfer of patients to hospital; [35200]

  (2) if he will list the air ambulances available to the health services in each nation of the UK indicating the areas they cover. [35199]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: There are currently 12 charitably funded air ambulance services operating in England. These are:

  Cornwall

  Kent

  West Midlands

  Devon

  North East England

  Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire

  343W

  Essex

  North West England

  Thames Valley

  Dorset and Somerset

  West Yorkshire

  East Anglia.

  In addition the helicopter emergency medical service covers London within the M25 motorway. There are also helicopter air ambulance services provided in the form of joint operations with the police in both Sussex and Wiltshire.

  The charities are responsible for the number of aircraft provided and national health service ambulance trusts are responsible for calling out air ambulances to emergencies in accordance with locally agreed protocols. No central guidance has been issued.

  Provision of air ambulance services in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to ensure that children are not removed by general practitioners from their lists due to medical and lifestyle decisions by their parents. [35212]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: General practitioners have always had the right to remove patients from their list without giving a reason, just as patients have the right to withdraw from a doctor's list without giving reasons. We strongly support the General Medical Council in their guidance "Duties of a Doctor" which makes clear it is unacceptable to discriminate against patients on grounds of lifestyle, culture, beliefs, race, colour, sex, sexuality, age, social status or perceived economic worth.

  Northwood and Pinner Community Hospital
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Northwood and Pinner community hospital; and what plans he has received from the Hillingdon primary care trust for the development of facilities for general practice on the site. [34597]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Proposals for the future of Northwood and Pinner community hospital will emerge from strategic plans currently being developed in line with priorities identified within the Hillingdon local modernisation review. At this stage there are no firm proposals for the Northwood and Pinner community hospital site. Any proposed changes will form the subject of a formal public consultation.

  Care Homes
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise the personal expenses allowance in care homes. [34694]

  Jacqui Smith
  Decisions on the level of the personal expenses allowance for people in residential care for April 2002 will be announced soon.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Global Conflict Prevention Pool
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects funded from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool since its establishment, indicating for each project the relevant countries and the total cost. [34469]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  A report on the activities of the pool in its first year will be published at the end of this financial year and will describe the programmes funded by the global pool. In the financial year 2001–02, a total of £60 million was allocated to the global pool, most of which is divided among the following 10 priority areas:

  The Balkans

  Central and Eastern Europe

  EU Civilian Crisis Management

  Indonesia and East Timor

  The Middle East and North Africa

  The OSCE

  Russia and the former Soviet Union

  Small arms and light weapons

  South Asia

  Strengthening the UN.

  The global pool also funds some conflict prevention related activity outside these areas for which funding was pre-committed when the pool was set up in April 2001.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assistance Her Majesty's Government(a) is providing and (b) has provided since 1990 to primary education in Zimbabwe; [34530]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the availability of teachers in Zimbabwe in each year since 1990; [34528]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the availability of (a) primary and (b) post primary education in Zimbabwe in each year since 1990. [34527]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has assisted a number of reviews of the education sector in Zimbabwe in the last 10 years. Between 1979 and 1996, Zimbabwe made major achievements in increasing equity and access to education. The number of primary schools doubled—from 2,321 to 4,659—as did enrolment figures which rose from 1.24 to 2.49 million children. The number of secondary schools increased by 763 per cent. from 177 to 1,528, and enrolment increased by 923 per cent. to around 0.75 million. Since 1990, UK assistance in this sector has been modest, with projects aiming to improve the quality of teacher training and to localise the examination curriculum.

  Zimbabwe still has a strong education system in comparison to most other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The net enrolment rate for primary education is currently 85 per cent. and in 1996, the last year for which statistics are available, 79 per cent. of primary school children continued on to secondary school. There are currently an estimated 104,000 teachers in Zimbabwe, the

  345W
  overwhelming majority of whom are trained graduates. However the education system is weakening, as are other social services, as a result of falling public spending; the rapidly rising costs of fees, books and paper; the impact of HIV/AIDS; and emigration of qualified personnel. DFID is currently assisting a study of the impact of HIV/AIDS on education.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the supply of staple foodstuffs in Zimbabwe in each year since 1990. [34526]

  Hilary Benn
  Maize is the staple foodstuff of Zimbabwe. DFID monitors crop forecasts through the SADC Famine Early Warning System, which also gives historical production data as follows:

  Maize production

  (thousand metric tonnes)

  1991

  1,586

  1992

  361

  1993

  2,012

  1994

  2,326

  1995

  840

  1996

  2,609

  1997

  2,192

  1998

  1,418

  Staff seconded to DFID from private sector since May 1997

  Number of Staff

  Organisation

  Civil service grade and responsibilities

  Salary paid by

  Start and end dates

  4

  Natural Resources Institute

  3 x A1 (former HCS Grade 6)

  NRI

  3 x pre-1997 to April 1999

  (NRI)

  1 x A2 (former HCS Grade 7) natural resources research and advisory duties

  1 x February 1999 to April 2000

  1

  Marconi

  3 x A2 imfundo project team project planning responsibilities in the education sector

  Companies

  May to October 2000

  1

  Virgin One

  1

  Cisco Systems

  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what help she intends to give to Voluntary Service Overseas in relation to the insurance premiums payable by them in the aftermath of 11 September; [34876]

  (2) what discussions she has had with Voluntary Service Overseas and other voluntary organisations about insurance premiums. [34884]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not been approached by either Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) or by other voluntary organisations about additional insurance premiums payable by them in the aftermath of 11 September 2001. This is a matter for VSO and the insurance companies.

  DFID already provides VSO with over £23 million a year under a three-year Partnership Programme Agreement worth £71.5 million.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what legal costs have been incurred by her Department in each of the last four years. [34346]
  346W

  Maize production

  (thousand metric tonnes)

  1999

  1,520

  2000

  2,040

  2001

  1,476

  Zimbabwe experienced very lean years in 1992 and 1995 when the rains failed. Maize production in these years was far short of the national requirement of around 2 million tonnes needed for human and animal consumption. The shortfall in national production in 2001, which was only 1.47 million tonnes, owes more to economic problems and disruption of farming than to climatic causes.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the names of staff who have been seconded to her Department from the private sector since May 1997, indicating(a) the names of the organisation from which each has come, (b) their responsibilities and Civil Service grades within her Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35834]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Hilary Benn
  Our records show that DFID has incurred legal costs totalling £230,972 in 1999–2000, £271,228 in 2000–01, and £249,030 in 2001–02 to date. The records for 1998–99 do not readily distinguish legal costs from other running costs—a disproportionate effort would be required to produce the information requested.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the publications issued by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34202]

  Hilary Benn
  The main DFID publications for each year are listed in our departmental reports to Parliament for 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  All DFID publications are free of charge unless otherwise indicated. This is in line with DFID's commitment to openness, as well as to raising awareness and understanding of development issues.

  Due to the disproportionate cost involved we are not able to provide the full level of details requested. We have an actively managed database of over 11,000

  347W
  organisations and individuals who have asked to be informed about new publications, and also use supplementary distribution channels for material which is likely to be of interest to specific audiences. DFID's overall expenditure on publications in each of the last four years was as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  166

  1998–99

  347

  1999–2000

  570

  2000–01

  639

  The increase in expenditure in each of the last three years reflects both the expansion in the range of material which we now make publicly available, and also the increased demand for this material.

  Burundian Rebels
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking to monitor the activities of the Burundian rebel groups operating from refugee camps on the Tanzanian border. [33983]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Tanzania continues to insist that Burundian rebels are not using refugee camps in Tanzania as a base for their actions. The refugee camps on the Tanzanian border with Burundi are run by UNHCR. They provide us with regular reports on the situation in them and take all reasonable steps to ensure that the activities in the camps are consistent with their status. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Botswana
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 311W, on Botswana, what action she has taken to secure water access for the San bushmen of South Africa. [34574]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of South Africa recognises the rights of access to basic water supply and sanitation in its 1996 Constitution and, through its Free Basic Water Policy, aims to make available 6,000 litres of water per month per household free of charge. This policy is motivated on the grounds that water is a basic service which is essential for health and that affordability should not constrain the access of poor and vulnerable people to this service. This policy applies to all disadvantaged and vulnerable groups within South Africa, including the San.

  DFID is providing assistance to the South African Department for Water Affairs and Forestry, to support their water services sector programme, with the goal of enhancing the livelihoods of marginalised groups through the creation of access to sustainable water and sanitation services.

  Burkina Faso
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement 348W
  on the new partnership for African development in relation to Burkina Faso. [34650]

  Hilary Benn
  The new partnership for African development (NEPAD) is an Africa-wide initiative that does not focus on specific countries. NEPAD has set up teams to work on five areas, which are: capacity building on peace and security; economic and corporate governance; infrastructure; central bank and financial standards; and agriculture and market access. Burkina Faso is not a member of the NEPAD steering committee or implementation committee. If Burkina Faso implements the principles set out by NEPAD, it should also benefit from the faster progress in development and poverty reduction that will ensue.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds her Department provides to the Government of Burkina Faso. [34648]

  Hilary Benn
  We do not have a substantive development programme in Burkina Faso. However a small amount of funding is allocated for small-scale grants to developmentally worthy activities. Last year £19,000 was provided in this way to fund a food security project. The EC maintains a large development assistance programme. In 1999 (the last year for which we have details) this amounted to £33.93 million, the UK imputed share of which was approximately £6.3 million.

  Malawi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is providing to people affected by floods in Malawi. [34651]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Malawi has not requested assistance. Flooding in low lying areas of the Shire Valley is seasonal and specific to a few areas. However my Department has contributed £3.5 million to the Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF), a public works programme which has a particular focus on remedial measures in flood prone districts. Income derived from the programme by the local population provides an alternative source of income when flooding occurs.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has provided to the Jawand district of Afghanistan since 11 September. [34647]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID assistance for emergency food provision in Afghanistan is channelled through the UN World Food Programme (WFP), which has received £6 million from my Department since September 2001. Needs have been met in most areas, but there remain pockets of unmet need in places difficult to access due to poor weather and insecurity. WFP is deploying helicopters into the country to assess the condition of hungry families as quickly as possible in such isolated areas, including Jawand district in Badghis province. This is one of the most seriously drought-affected and inaccessible areas, where WFP reports that food access is precarious.
  349W
  Because the area is extremely difficult to access in the winter, six months' worth of wheat, or 300 kilograms per family, were distributed in Siah Sangh town in Jawand district in early January. WFP is gearing up to move in
  350W
  other food items as soon as possible. By early January, 5,000 tons of food had been delivered to Jawand province, to a total of 15,000 households, or roughly 90,000 people.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to express to Your Majesty the sympathy of this House in the loss which Your Majesty has sustained by the untimely death of Your sister, Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, so close to the fiftieth anniversary of the passing of Your father. We also trust that Your Majesty will convey to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother our deep sympathy in Her tragic loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with Your Majesties, and with all of Your family, at this sorrowful time".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret was known and loved by many of your Lordships and I have personally been greatly moved by the extent and depth of your Lordships' desire to send this message of condolence to Her Majesty the Queen. We feel very keenly for the bereavement of the family, who have lost a beloved sister and a cherished mother and daughter.
The sadness which her death has brought bears witness to the joyful, exuberant way she lived her life. As a young woman of great beauty, she radiated a sense of fun and vitality that enchanted those who knew her. Throughout her public life, she remained loyal to the charities she chose to support: particularly the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal Ballet, and the Guides. Her children were fortunate to experience her continuing support, encouragement and love, and in their mother's final years were able to repay some of that debt by supporting and sustaining her through her illness.
Princess Margaret will be missed greatly by her family, her friends, the people of this country and by many, many members of your Lordships' House. I know that the House will wish to add its own voice to the countless other voices raised in tribute to this most remarkable Princess by sending an humble Address to her Majesty in the following terms.
Moved. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to
992
express to Your Majesty the sympathy of this House in the loss which Your Majesty has sustained by the untimely death of Your sister. Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, so close to the fiftieth anniversary of the passing of Your father. We also trust that Your Majesty will convey to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother our deep sympathy in Her tragic loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with Your Majesties, and with all of Your family, at this sorrowful time".—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
2.39 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I support wholeheartedly the entirely appropriate Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. How fitting it is that an humble Address should be presented to Her Majesty at this sad time. All Peers, on all sides of the House, welcome the opportunity to express in this way our feelings of the deepest sympathy to Her Majesty the Queen. Additionally, I know that all of us will have been profoundly moved by the tragic sense of loss that must be felt by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret was well known to many Members of this House. I and many others recall the dignity with which she so often graced the State Opening of Parliament. As many have said, hers was a moving life: one that displayed the highest principles of duty and service to the nation; one adorned by rare talents, great courage and an incomparable sense of style; and one that brought into the lives of those who knew her, and to millions who did not, a light that will shine on for many years to come. She took particular delight in her sponsorship of the arts, a deep interest in music and the ballet and her involvement in children's charities.
Our hearts go out to the children of Her Royal Highness and to her whole family. I am pleased formally to second the Motion moved by the Leader of the House.
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, the Liberal Democrats would also very much like to be identified with the humble Address presented by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and to express our profound sympathy to Her Majesty the Queen and Her family.
Princess Margaret had an extraordinarily bright and inquiring mind. She gathered around her a whole range of people who were leading figures in their professions—in the arts, but also in philosophy, religion, and many other areas of life. She also had an amazingly sharp and shining wit— something to which her friends have paid great tribute during these past, difficult days.
As Lady Longford, pointed out, extremely incisively, she lived a life that bridged the period from a Royal Family that was surrounded by protocol and privacy to one that was indeed part of the public life of the nation, and had to suffer some of the difficulties of

993
living a life in a fishbowl that is characteristic of the modern Royal Family. She managed that not only with her wit and balance but with a strange strain of iconoclasm that is very much part of the modern world.
In passing our regrets to her family, and in particular to her children, one can say that perhaps the finest epitaph of all for Princess Margaret, who was not only a great public figure but a devoted mother, an amusing and charming aunt and a splendidly loyal sister, is that one can see that epitaph written in the devotion and dignity of her family at this most grievous time.
2.43 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I give wholehearted support to the humble Address. Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, gave great service to the country and the Commonwealth. Her sense of duty was strong and her interests extraordinarily wide.
I should like to pay tribute to her involvement with the Armed Forces. Throughout her life she took a great deal of interest in the many units and formations that she visited. She had a special affection for HMS "Illustrious" and HMS "Norfolk". She was Colonel-in-Chief of the Light Dragoons, of the Royal Highland Fusiliers — Princess Margaret's own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment—of Princess Louise Fusiliers, the Highland Fusiliers of Canada, and of Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. She was very closely involved with Royal Air Force Station Coningsby as its honorary air commodore over a period of almost 25 years. Those—and many more—associations with the three armed services in the United Kingdom and in the Commonwealth underlined her strong feelings of loyalty and support for these guardians of our freedoms.
Above all, we should remember her great love for the theatre and the ballet. Her interest in and enthusiasm for all the arts was exceptional, and she was extremely knowledgeable. Her ability to play the piano, and very well indeed, will never be forgotten by all who heard her perform. I join in expressing my deep sorrow and sympathy to all those—family and friends—who knew and admired Her Royal Highness. May she rest in peace.
2.45 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, it is with great sadness that I convey from these Benches the support of the Lords spiritual for the Motion.
Since Saturday, we have heard many tributes to Her Royal Highness, demonstrating the great love and affection with which she will be remembered. Her friends remind us of her great appetite for life and the joy that she brought to so many people through her love of the arts, of which we have been reminded, and her support for a great number of charities. Her family remind us that she was a much-loved mother, aunt and grandmother. Only a few days ago, she was enjoying a
994
birthday party for her grandson Arthur, surrounded by children and with balloons attached to her wheelchair—at the very heart of her family, as she was throughout her life.
For myself, I will remember a princess sustained by a real and firm faith in Almighty God. Indeed, we were looking forward so much to her joining us at Lambeth Palace tomorrow for the traditional Ash Wednesday service. In addition, throughout her life, she was a source of unfailing support and strength to her sister, Her Majesty the Queen. Our thoughts and prayers are with all the members of the family, especially her children, David and Sarah. We commend her to her Heavenly Father.
2.46 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, to be a Member of this House is a great public privilege. I also enjoyed the private privilege of friendship with Princess Margaret over many years. An occasion like this is a serious and solemn one. But there is also joy amidst the sorrow, and I thank the leaders from all parts of the House who spoke for the felicitous way in which they expressed the mind of your Lordships.
I shall add what is really a personal footnote. Princess Margaret was a deeply serious person. Her central purpose in life was to support the institution of the monarchy. In all the years that I knew her, I never heard her utter a word about Her Majesty that was not loving, supportive and insighted. Her royal duties brought her great pleasure, comfort and fulfilment. She was a true professional when she was on the job. She prepared her homework, she did the job well, and she was received with joy wherever she went.
The ballet has been mentioned. Princess Margaret has every claim to be considered one of the creators of the modern Royal Ballet. It is not as though she went only to gala occasions: she went to every performance that she could, and she knew the names of all the children, the rising stars at the ballet school. She encouraged the directors and the dancers in difficult times.
As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said, the princess was a deeply religious person. She did not like matins, but she knew what the Eucharist was about. Anyone who saw her curtsy during the creed at the utterance of the sacred name had their faith uplifted and confirmed. She also had something that often goes with religion—a capacity for enjoyment, a joie de vivre. That is terribly important; if one loses that, one has lost everything. Who wants to be extinguished by a wet blanket'? It is a generous gift, because other people share in it, and they are made more— not less—themselves by it.
As I look back, on this solemn occasion, it is yet with joy that I look back to that happy, carefree person with her zest for life and her appreciation of the grand shine that lies on the surface of life. I see her on the edge of a dance floor, waiting to take part in the celebrations with the eagerness and anticipation of a young girl.

995
As noble Lords look back, we give thanks for the radiance and loveliness of that person, for her true and profound regality, for her luminous intelligence and for her sense of duty, perfectly balanced by her sense of fun. I recall Her Royal Highness today in this remarkable House in that way. I look backwards with the eyes of memory and forwards with the eyes of hope.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Special Advisers
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce legislation to clarify and define the role and functions of special advisers.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, my Answer to the noble Lord of 9th January made it clear that the Government are committed to introducing legislation on the Civil Service when parliamentary time allows. The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and a limit on the number of special advisers will be included in the legislation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Have the Government noted suggestions in the press that lines of accountability are blurred and that the status of special advisers should be set out by statute? Can he confirm that there are now 27 of these special advisers working for the Prime Minister?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I can confirm that there are 27 special advisers in No. 10, out of a total payroll of 175. I can confirm, too, that there will be full consultation on legislation on the Civil Service, which will take place in due course.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the influence of special advisers has grown considerably, especially in this media-driven age? If he does agree. will he tell the House what precise action is being taken by all government departments to see that all policy statements are made first to Parliament and that this undertaking is imposed on special advisers no less than on Ministers?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in regard to announcements made to the media, guidance is available from government information services. All such guidance from special advisers to the media must be authorised by their Ministers. I can say to noble Lords that in December the Prime Minister made a statement that, wherever practicable and possible, we would try to respect the fact that all announcements of substance should be made first of course to Parliament.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, since the Opposition Front Bench in another place appear to have a problem in relation to their Short money in distinguishing between funding their parliamentary activities and funding the Conservative Party, do the Government propose to take any action to assist them in making that distinction?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have no such intention, but I think that it is right to draw attention to the fact that the amount available in Short money to opposition parties has trebled in recent times.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords—
Lord McNally: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, are the special advisers at No. 10 responsible to Parliament through Select Committees? If not, will the legislation ensure that they are?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I repeat, the legislation will be subject to very full consultation, but the special advisers at No. 10 are accountable to the Prime Minister. Perhaps more than any other the Prime Minister is accountable to the House of Commons in his weekly parliamentary Question Time.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, as certain special advisers involve themselves in the work of departmental Ministers, is it not clear that if the Select Committee on Administration in the other place were to ask for some of those advisers to appear before it, those advisers should be prepared to do so?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the special advisers are accountable to their Ministers. It is for Ministers to appear before the Public Administration Select Committee if so requested. Of course civil servants can be required to go along, in which case they will give information on government policy and its implementation. But I do not think it is automatic that we should expect every adviser in every circumstance, including part-time and unpaid advisers, to appear before Select Committees.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, which reported in 1998, received no evidence that the system of political advisers had been abused or had caused resentment within the established Civil Service? Is he further aware that, as a signatory to that report. I could not give such a ringing endorsement four years later? Does he not think it now appropriate to ask the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, to reconvene in order to re-examine the question of

997
whether the Northcote-Trevelyan principle of an independent Civil Service promoted on merit is still safe in the hands of this Government?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I would draw to the attention of the House the comments of the Public Administration Select Committee made much more recently than the report to which the noble Lord has referred. It praised the Government for,
"commendable recent progress on special advisers. For the first time ever, there is a specific code of conduct for special advisers".
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed the excellent article published today in The Times by the distinguished political commentator Peter Riddell which brings the comforting news that relations between the permanent Civil Service and special advisers are much improved since the general election?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I have not read The Times today, but I do recall that Sir Richard Wilson said that he thought that,
"cabinet government … is in a healthy state, and that the Cabinet Office is the right way to be supporting and serving it".
I note too that the Prime Minister has decided that the person chosen to succeed Sir Richard Wilson will need to have direct experience of working in the Civil Service. The field will include both serving and former civil servants. A panel made up of Sir Richard Wilson, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, and the independent First Civil Service Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, will now draw up a shortlist of candidates. The Prime Minister will then choose from the shortlist with the aim of appointing a successor to Sir Richard by April. I hope noble Lords will accept that this is a much more transparent process than any that we have had before and will put to rest some of the fears that have been expressed.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the special adviser network in Whitehall and Downing Street is now the main channel of communication between government Ministers and lobbyists of various kinds? Therefore, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to share with the House a list of the contacts between senior special advisers in No. 10 and donors to the Labour Party?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot give any such assurance because we would be entering territory which would be better explored by specific questions than by generalised suggestions of the kind made by the noble Lord. Let me make it clear that all special advisers are accountable to their Ministers, who are in turn accountable to Parliament.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must move on. We are in the ninth minute.

Company Directors' Remuneration
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they are taking to deal with excessive increases in salary and large bonus and benefit payments to company board members.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, on 19th October 2001, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced her intention to legislate on this issue. On 18th December 2001, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultation document on draft regulations. The draft regulations aim to strengthen disclosure requirements, particularly in relation to policy on directors' remuneration, and to introduce a requirement for an annual shareholder vote on the directors' remuneration report.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that these grotesque payments have continued for the five years that the Labour Government have been in power in spite of the statements that they made in opposition? Is he aware that the argument that these payments are rewards for success is not wholly true? Can he comment on the fact that these huge payments are made, in some cases, where companies are sustaining heavy losses? Does he not agree that the well publicised intention— I assume he was referring to this—to give power to shareholders is a fallacy in that the controlling power will be in the hands of institutional shareholders, who always agree to such large increases?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I certainly agree that there is concern about the rapid increase in executive salaries which do not clearly seem to be related to the performance of companies. This is an area of concern, which is why we propose to introduce the regulations. However, we believe—it is common ground—that it is for the shareholders involved, both institutional and ordinary, to take action on this point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister has previously given answers to me to the effect that the public are most concerned about people who go away with big money when they have failed. In the past he has said that it was a matter of contract and could not be altered. Do the Government have any plans to revise the law in such a way that there could be a clawback afterwards in such cases? This issue really annoys people.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there clearly is an issue of contract. Most of these directors have contracts which have been freely entered into by the company and the particular director. The Greenbury report rightly pointed out that directors should take a robust view of a company's interest in circumstances

999
where there had been failure. Nevertheless, these are contracts, and if they are not abided by the company is liable to be subjected to serious litigation, which directors also have to take into account. There is a very real issue that if companies want to attract people they have to enter into contracts with them—and, in principle, they should abide by those contracts.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness said, while recognising that the Government have sought consultation on this issue and that the view expressed by the Minister in relation to this question—which has been asked six times by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington—has always been the same, does he not accept that the world has changed and that there is a sense that people at the top level of British industry are being rewarded for non-competence rather than for breach of contract? Does he not accept that, as the world has changed, the Government should look again at their draft regulations to see whether they can set a framework under which this will no longer happen?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I certainly agree that we have now entered a world where British executives can no longer claim to be underpaid in world terms. In fact, they are now the second highest paid in Europe after the Belgians. So there is no question now of saying that British chief executives are underpaid. However, that does not alter our view that this is essentially a matter for the shareholders. The role of government is to make certain that there is a framework which clearly sets out the basis of those rewards in order that average shareholders—in many cases today those will include employees of a company—have the right to vote on the remuneration report at an annual general meeting. That is the way forward which gives accountability and transparency.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure he is—that the proposed regulations require an advisory vote by shareholders, whoever they are? Is he further aware that there is now an overwhelming case for the mandatory introduction of failure clauses, of which the Institute of Directors recently said it had never heard? Such clauses would limit the law of contract—which is not unknown in modern society— by providing that where a company has miserably failed, and the workforce and their families have suffered savage job cuts, directors and executives can no longer plunder a company where they have overseen failure.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am well aware that it is to be an advisory vote. I believe that it should be an advisory vote. It will be an extremely powerful signal to boards and to non-executive directors that shareholders are unhappy and will be taken very seriously. It has to be an advisory vote because if new directors are appointed to a board you cannot have a situation where, if they join during the year, they do not know whether the salary agreed with the company will be passed at the annual general meeting. The question of a failure clause comes down
1000
to whether one views it as right that the Government should intervene in a situation where a company wishing to recruit someone from abroad does not want to put a failure clause into a contract because it would not be able to attract the person, or whether it is right for the company to decide the issue in the light of its recruitment policy.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that if you join a company when the share price is £12 and you are sacked when the share price is 41p, you have been in major breach of contract? You are not employed to reduce the share price from £12 to 41/2p; you are employed to make the company prosper. Under those circumstances, surely the director concerned is in direct breach of contract and does not need to be paid a single farthing for his failure. No one minds about big money for big success, but they do object to big money for failure.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not a lawyer but I would be very surprised if it was a breach of contract.

Deafblind Adults and Children
3.9 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether local authorities are entitled to disregard government guidance on deafblind adults and children issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Health under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 has statutory force and authorities would be open to judicial review if they failed to comply.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's response. However, does he agree that deafblindness is a devastating dual disability— a stunning disability—and that it requires special measures? I am sure that my noble friend has checked his files in relation to this Question. Does he recall his letter to me on 29th September 2000, stating that Section 7 guidance was being issued by the Government, enjoining local authorities to assess deafblind people in their area and to provide the necessary services? The letter stated that the guidance was "legally binding". The disability organisation, Sense, which specialises in deafblindness, recently stated that many local authorities are doing very little, indeed practically nothing. What effective action will the Government now take?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, perhaps I may pay tribute to my noble friend. The result of the

1001
Private Member's Bill that he introduced in this House a couple of years ago was very influential in the issuing by the Government of Section 7 guidance.
My noble friend is right to point to the terrible effect that deafblindness can have on many people and on their families. That is why we issued the Section 7 guidance. I have seen the report by Sense, which is the result of a survey sent to parents of deafblind children in October 2001. It indicates some of the problems and deficiencies in the provision of services to date. However, the survey needs to be put into context. Local authorities were given a new responsibility from last April. My understanding is that they have responded to the new requirements. As a result of the statutory guidance, they will have a much better idea of the issues that they face at local level and will be able to offer an assessment where it is required by deafblind people or by their parents; and we can look to see the kind of improved services that my noble friend wishes to see.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, surely the local authorities are not entitled to disregard guidance. That is the answer to the Question, is it not?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We expect local authorities to follow the guidance. We shall be monitoring their performance. If we come across cases in the next few months where local authorities are not following the guidance, we shall draw it to their attention.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, there can be no more isolating disability impairment than deafblindness. Does the Minister agree that local authorities should make the assessment and the one-to-one support services needed by deafblind children and adults their first priority in the provision of services? Is it not scandalous that provision under the Section 7 guidance is still very patchy throughout Britain?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of defending local authorities. It is fair to say that the guidance was issued only last April. In our view it is being implemented by local authorities. But, inevitably, it takes time to get the machinery into place. The whole point of the guidance was to give local authorities a much clearer idea of the problems and difficulties that they would have to face. The evidence that I have shows that local authorities are getting on with the job. One-to-one support is one of the factors that needs to be considered in the assessment that a local authority will be required to offer to a deafblind person if it is requested. We need to give the situation a few more months to settle down before we can make a decent judgment about how local authorities are doing the job.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the first step must be the identification of all those who are deafblind? Roughly, when can local authorities be reasonably expected to have an idea of the number of deafblind people in their areas?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. In the guidance issued to local authorities we called on them to identify, make contact with, and keep a record of deafblind people in their catchment area. The progress of each local authority is bound to be different. Some authorities have done very well in this area, and others not so well. We shall be monitoring the situation. By autumn this year we shall expect to know how well each local authority has done.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister said that local authorities must abide by guidance. But guidance is not approved by Parliament, whereas regulations are. What is the difference, therefore, between guidance and regulations in terms of their mandatory effect on local authorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point is that guidance was issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The implication is that, although local authorities are not under a legal obligation to follow Section 7 guidance to the letter, it has been held in case law that they are required to follow the path charted by the Secretary of State and that they are not free to deviate from the guidance unless there is good reason to do so. In any case, they are not free to follow a substantially different course. In experience, local authorities recognise that they are expected to comply with the guidance.

Multiple Directorships
3.15 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent disclosures of multiple directorships, as revealed by the Enron corporation bankruptcy, they intend to introduce legislation to restrict the number of such appointments an individual may hold.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is very important that directors are able to devote sufficient time to their responsibilities. The number of directorships held is one factor that can affect this; there are, of course, others. There is already a requirement under the Listing Rules for all directorships held by directors of listed companies to be disclosed. This is a matter for companies and shareholders to consider when an individual is a candidate for election to a company board.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However. I find it slightly complacent. It is of a piece with the Answer that he gave to a previous Question on remuneration. Does he agree that—conglomerates and their subsidiary boards apart—even a complete insomniac cannot do justice to discharging his duties as a non-executive director if he holds up to 17 directorships? Does he further agree that there are potential conflicts of interest in holding a multiplicity of directorships?

1003
Will he accept that businessmen holding, say, in excess of five directorships, let alone 16, are motivated by overweening arrogance and insatiable greed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is clearly wrong for people to take on too many non-executive directorships which they cannot carry out properly. However, I believe that it is impossible to produce legislation setting out exactly how many non-executive directorships it is reasonable for a director to hold. There are too many variables: the size of a company, its complexity, where it is located, and whether the person has other public duties. Therefore, to come up with a simple figure would be extremely difficult. I point out—although this is not in the true spirit of kicking people when they are down—that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, held a number of directorships, such as the Alexander Rose Day, the Warrior Preservation Trust, the Surrey County Agricultural Society, St Swithin's School, Winchester, and the Carlton Club. I very much doubt whether those are taxing jobs, or indeed well remunerated.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in the light of the positively awe-inspiring list of overlapping appointments, both in the public sector and in the private sector and in academia, together with the large number of publications contained in the entry of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in Who's Who, will the Government seek to obtain advice from the noble Lord as to how directors and others may carry out such multiple appointments with the apparent dexterity that he has, and without the arrogance to which he has referred?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, although I have spent a very pleasant morning looking up on websites the directorships of many Members of this House, I do not think it is for me to advise Members on how they should carry out their duties.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the answer to the previous question is, "as a Liberal Democrat? After that slightly partisan comment, does he agree that there is a real issue here, particularly in regard to the major listed companies? A pattern seems to he emerging in which chief executives of one company nominate non-executive directors from others; then, as chief executives, they are nominated as non-executive directors to those other companies. Does the Minister accept that the Government's policy—seemingly one of laissez-faire— is perhaps not adequate in modern circumstances?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that the existence of such cross-directorships is concerning, particularly to shareholders. However, the issue is whether the Government should move in and try to establish how many directorships an individual should have. As I said, it is not possible to do that. I am not aware of any legislation anywhere in the world with that extremely difficult, if not impossible, aim. The issue is of great interest to institutional shareholders. I think that all your Lordships agree that they have a major job to do to stop such situations arising.

State Pension Credit Bill WM
3.20 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Entitlement]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "in the case of a man or a woman, the age which is the pensionable age in the case of a woman born on the same day as a man"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as the Minister and I acknowledged in Committee, this is perhaps the most difficult part of any of our proceedings. As noble Lords are getting themselves into some kind of order, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who would normally be here, is absent today. She is in hospital receiving treatment. Bearing in mind the great knowledge and expertise that she has often given to the House on these subjects, I am sure that all your Lordships wish her well.
We return to a subject on which the Committee spent a great deal of time—the equalisation of the savings credit. On Second Reading, the Minister gave us a dazzling exposition of some of the many reasons why the Government feel unable to introduce the savings credit element of the pension credit at age 60. We were regaled with the examples of Jack and Frank. I am sure that many of those who attended the Committee debates went away and spent a long time studying those biographies. Perhaps your Lordships also agree that, solely for the purposes of these debates, one has to hope that every pensioner is a single person with no intention of going into any sort of relationship with anybody else and becoming part of a double household. That is not a sentiment that I would espouse in any other circumstances.
I moved an amendment in Committee to address the disadvantage caused to a generation of women aged 60 to 65 between now and 2010 by the fact that the pension credit will apply only from age 65. The Minister explained the deficiencies of that amendment in her usual helpful and lengthy manner. I read her answer in some detail, but it was only about men. not about the problems faced by women.
On reflection, I think that fairness can be introduced for women without causing the problems that the Minister explained to us in relation to men. We should look at the income of men. The Minister pointed out that men aged 60 to 64 do not receive the state retirement pension. However, she also said that it would be possible to deem the income of men aged 60 to 64. The amendment would deem the rate that they would receive. It would be necessary to know what contributions had been made and what they would he likely to equal on retirement. That information is already produced and anyone can ask for it well before their retirement. On that basis, we could ensure equality and fairness at 60, because the rate of the savings credit would be based on actual pension contributions. Those actual contributions would be the basis for the deemed amount and would be used for a calculation of entitlement.
The amendment, and the others in the group, would deal with those women of a particular generation who always seem to miss out in pension reforms and have done so throughout their lives. That is the spirit in which I move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I have two amendments in the group. I am coming at the issue from a slightly different angle from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. We should be trying to minimise the complexities and the fundamental shifts that take place in the future. Those arise for two reasons: primarily, in this Bill, because the guarantee credit and the savings credit are not payable at the same age; and, secondly, because of the proposed change in the pensionable age of women, which is not part of the matter under discussion. Thus we have different treatment for the two types of credit and different treatment for men as opposed to women. My amendments would equalise the treatment of men and women as regards the savings credit.
When we discussed the amendments in Committee, the Minister reiterated the central and very sensible point:
"The savings credit aims to reward people for thrift, ensuring for the first time that they are not penalised for having made efforts to save".— [Official Report, 24/1/02; col. 1611.]
That is the central plank of the Bill. She then helpfully gave us some worked examples to show why the amendments would not work. She invited us to read them in Hansard, because they were hard to understand on the fly.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, I think that her officials were disingenuous in coming up with the examples. That is why some of us remain concerned about the issue. The Minister gave the example of Jack, who was aged 63 and had an income of £23 from an occupational pension. To get him up to the £100 figure, he received a £77 credit. She pointed out that if my amendments were accepted, Jack would get an additional savings credit on his £23 that would give him £13.80 extra a week, resulting in a total income of £113.80. She then talked about Frank, who was also 63, but who received an occupational pension of £24, so he received only £76 extra to get him to the £100 minimum guarantee. However, because he was over the maximum savings credit, his entitlement was reduced by 40p in the additional pound that he received from his occupational pension as a result of saving. Therefore, as she rightly pointed out, Jack would get £113.80 and Frank would get £113.40. Frank would be penalised for having saved more. She therefore argued that the amendments would undermine the incentive to save.
With respect, the Minister failed to address the larger anomaly, which will persist if the amendment is not accepted in some form. Perhaps I may introduce to the Minister, Alistair, who comes to us care of the Post Office and BT Pensioners. Alistair also is aged 63, but he has saved nothing at all. He has made no attempt to save for his old age. So, between 60 and 65, he will receive the full £100 single person's guaranteed credit.
1006
However, looked at from the other point of view, from the position of UK plc, Jack has cost £77, Frank has cost £76, but Alistair is costing £100. Surely UK plc should be trying to encourage more Jacks and Franks and fewer Alistairs. If the provision is not amended, we shall be doing nothing to encourage Jack and Frank between 60 and 65 because an Alistair will do just as well as they do. Jack and Frank's anomaly is 40p per week, which is hardly a large sum, whereas Alistair's anomaly is very much greater.
The second example that the Minister gave was a 63 year-old man and a 63 year-old woman, both with a £100 per week occupational pension. The Minister said that the man would receive £13.80 per week because he had no retirement pension whereas the woman would receive nothing because with her pension she would be outside the pension credit limits. As the Minister put it,
"That would clearly be unfair".—— [Official Report, 24/1/02: col. 1611.]
What I think the Minister's officials have ignored or overlooked is what each of those two is receiving in money each week. The woman is receiving £100 occupational pension and £77 basic state pension, totalling £177 per week. The man is receiving £100 per week plus the £13.80. The differential between £177 and £113.80 shows that the unfairness is the other way round, not as the Minister explained it in the example.
The simple way of dealing with the matter is to equalise the ages at which pension credit is available to men and women, with women's pensionable age as the qualifying age.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I intervene only briefly. We discussed the matter in considerable depth in Committee, and the Minister's contribution on it extends over many columns of Hansard. It is very difficult to debate this matter on the Floor of the House. My noble friend Lord Hodgson has spelt out the situation very clearly. It is the type of issue that is sometimes best addressed in writing, and it has been helpful to have it in Hansard.
The problem stems basically from the fact that, currently, men and women retire at different ages, and the fact that, as the result of the European Court judgment, it is proposed that they should coincide. In the interim period, it is extremely difficult to ensure that both men and women are treated fairly—whatever that may mean. I do not think that we are clear even among ourselves— if I may use the expression in your Lordships' House—as to what "treating them fairly" means.
We have had many representations, not least from the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners which has set out the arguments in considerable detail. I think that it may be worth while for those who have not yet had a chance to see those arguments to do so before Third Reading.
At this stage I ask the Minister only one question. If these amendments are not accepted, will the whole thing "come out in the wash" when the men's and

1007
women's retirement age coincides? Will everyone then be treated equally? In short, is this really a transitional problem? Perhaps we should consider between now and Third Reading whether something should be done about transitional arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords. I think that the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was very helpful: he has nailed the problem precisely. Our dilemma is that we currently have different retirement ages, and that, to make it more complicated still, we shall be gradually moving from one age to another for women. There is therefore a double issue. He is absolutely right also that, at the point at which pension ages for men and women are the same, at 65, both the pension credit guarantee element and the pension credit savings reward element will kick in equally for both. He is absolutely right on that point, as he anticipated.
The noble Lord is also right that, meanwhile, as we are dealing with conflicting notions of fairness, there may not be a way through the issue that is obviously fair. What may be fair to women may be considered unfair to men, although the European Court may rule otherwise. As your Lordships will know, the conclusion that we have reached is that we should treat men and women equally at 60 for the guarantee element, which is the point at which they are poor. but treat them equally at 65 for the savings element, which hinges not on their poverty but on the fact that they have taken their retirement pension. As men cannot take retirement pension until 65, we have established the two different ages.
The minimum income guarantee does not require a given retirement pension level. The pension credit savings element, however, must establish such a requirement as that is the fulcrum on which the element rests. That is why we have dealt with the two ages in different ways.
As I said in Committee when speaking to similar amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, 65 is the only reasonable choice for a minimum age for the savings credit element. We have had to make the choice not only because of European rules, but because of our respect for the Pensions Act 1995 introduced by the then Conservative government.
It would clearly be unfair if the savings credit were payable to people aged 60 to 64. Men and women would have different outcomes simply because of the unequal nature of the existing state help that they receive. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, identified, depending on the exact circumstances—which could be extremely quirky and extremely perverse—a man could receive either more or less savings credit, in quite unpredictable ways, than a woman in the same situation. That would be unfair. Consequently, as I said, we decided to make the savings credit available from 65.
1008
If we were instead to do as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, suggests in Amendment No. I and pay the credit at 60, the provision would have to reward the basic state pension, although that is not paid to men until 65. The noble Baroness therefore asks whether we could introduce a version of deeming and reward the additional pension provision that people have made. As I said, that would unfairly reward those who had not contributed to the basic state pension above those who had contributed throughout their working lives.
I gave a lengthy example, which has been quoted back to me. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson identified, deeming people to have a full basic state pension could lead to situations in which people who have saved more end up worse off than people who have saved less. Equally, as I said in Committee, there are real difficulties about SERPS. Equally, because they are more likely to be in work, and unlike women, men can expect to continue building up provision for their retirement until 65.
As I said, the issue is difficult not only because women have a different retirement age from that for men, but because we are gradually bringing the retirement age for women up to that for men. I could speak for 20 minutes on the issue. All I shall say is that we cannot have a savings element of pension credit that does not rest on the fulcrum of a retirement age of 65—except by means of deemings, for example, which are not only unfair but would be horrendously expensive, to the tune of billions of pounds. That cannot be right.
We are saying that, when people are poor, we shall treat them equally at 60. However, when we are rewarding savings, based on the fulcrum point of the retirement age of 65, we shall treat everyone the same. It may not be a perfect solution, but I believe that it is the optimum one.
Although I could speak to the issue at considerable length, I am sure that your Lordships do not wish, me to rehash our discussion in Committee. I therefore ask your Lordships to withdraw or not press the amendments in this group. Nothing that has been said today or in Committee has persuaded me that, despite its imperfections, there is a better way forward than the solution we have arrived at. So far as I can see, our solution is the best way forward without treating men and women unfairly on the basis of gender, treating individual men and women unfairly, or landing all taxpayers with a horrendous bill arising from deeming men to have taken a retirement pension that they have not yet earned.
The Government cannot move on the issue. Nor—given the concept of the pension savings credit—do I think that we should. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her customary full answer on the subject. I am not terribly surprised at her reaction. However, I return to the fact that a woman aged 63 and a woman aged 67 may have the same income but under this

1009
scheme will end up with entirely different provision. They may not have done anything different throughout their lives in terms of saving. The only thing is that one will have reached the retirement age for men. I go back to the point that I made in Committee. When we are dealing with the details of these Bills it is sometimes easy to move away from their broad thrust. The broad thrust of the Bill is to try to encourage people to save for their retirement. I cannot see how healthy, fairly active women in their late fifties and early sixties faced with this proposition could have any inducement to save as opposed to spending. There is an inherent flaw in what the Government are trying to do. Having said that, I rest my case at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Guarantee credit]:
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete the clause that gives the Secretary of State the power to reduce the level of the standard minimum guarantee in certain circumstances. The Explanatory Notes state that this power is intended to be used when the claimant or his or her partner has been in hospital for six weeks. I understand that there may be other circumstances when the power will also be used, but my intention in putting forward the amendment is to continue the important debate that we started to have in Committee on hospital downratings.
As noble Lords will be aware, the issue of hospital downratings has received considerable attention recently. I raised the issue as a Starred Question in October following Age Concern's report on the subject. Since then there has been much media interest and parliamentary support for change—an Early Day Motion in the other place has 175 signatures with support from all sides of the House. There is also strong support for reform from a range of organisations including Age Concern, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.
In Committee the Minister referred to the need to prevent double provision, as no doubt all Ministers have done for the past 54 years. However, as I said at earlier stages of the Bill, the situation of older people in hospital today is very different from that in 1948. Indeed, that situation was a major spur to the development in this country of the specialism of geriatric medicine in which the UK became the acknowledged world leader. Today very few people "live" permanently in hospital or spend a long spell there when they could be more sensibly—as we know today—and appropriately cared for at home or in a care home. As we all know, most geriatric wards have quite rightly long gone. I would therefore assume that if someone is in hospital for more than six weeks now he or she is there because they are extremely ill. Alternatively, I wonder whether some of the older
people suffering cuts to their state pension are only in hospital for more than six weeks because they are waiting for a placement in a care home or for community support to be put in place to enable them to return home. Does the noble Baroness have those figures?
Nowadays most pensioners have a home to maintain. Bills such as insurance, telephone rental, standing charges, maintenance, TV rental and licence fees do not stop. Families are more dispersed so there may not be someone round the corner to keep an eye on things or to look after a pet. Instead, people may need to pay someone to do those jobs or at least to cover their transport costs. Couples face costs such as taxis to visit or car parking charges which hospital visitors in 1948 would not have thought of having to meet.
However, in addition to my concern about the costs that people face is the worry and distress caused by the administration of hospital deductions. Age Concern's briefing refers to a woman who left hospital against medical advice because she did not want to be in hospital for six weeks having seen the problems a fellow patient had experienced when her pension book had not been returned during a three month stay in hospital. NACAB has also produced a briefing giving examples of administrative problems faced by many people. When people are ill we should not expect them to understand how complicated benefit systems work and deal with the bureaucracy, to say nothing of the delays and poor administration that unfortunately they sometimes have to face.
In Committee I raised the issue of the effect of a stay in hospital on the assessed income period. I thank the noble Baroness for her letter on that issue and the reassurance that a stay in hospital will not affect the duration of the period unless one member of a couple is in hospital for 52 weeks. I welcome that but it would be far simpler if the sensible rules that will mean people do not need to report changes in retirement income were extended so that admission to hospital was another change in circumstance that did not affect the level of payments and therefore did not need to be reported.
As the House will know, I have a later amendment on this subject. I should like to see much closer integration between tax and benefits systems. If a pensioner does not need to tell the Inland Revenue that he or she is in hospital, why should they need to inform the Department for Work and Pensions? I fully support the Government's aim of producing a less intrusive and less bureaucratic system. Removing, or at least reforming, hospital downrating rules would help to achieve that aim. I remind your Lordships that this rule has been in place since 1948, as I said before, and has largely been unreformed since then, despite being under almost permanent review. I know that the Minister has referred to read-across with local authority systems and that there are issues about the rules for other benefits, but I believe that there is time for these areas to be fully examined.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that she is giving serious consideration to abolishing the out-of-date and unfair six week downrating rule. At the very least I hope that she will accept in principle that the rule needs to be reformed and that there will be a genuine review of the current system. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 as well as to Amendment No. 2 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. The noble Baroness has immense experience and expertise in this area and we must take due account of what she says. It seems to me that there are essentially three issues at stake here. First, the question of principle goes right back to the origin of the social security system; namely, that there should not be duplicate payment of benefits. Therefore, if provision is made under one benefit, it should not also be made under a second benefit. Secondly, there are problems as regards the amount of the deduction or downrating. Thirdly, there are problems when a patient is discharged with regard to overpayments being recovered and payment of the original amount to which the patient was entitled being resumed.
I shall discuss those issues in turn. I do not dispute the point of principle which is well established and was reinforced by the Select Committee in another place which reported on the matter some time ago. But having said that, the time has come to reappraise the issue. Apparently, at any one time about 30,000 people have their benefits downrated. I think I am right in saying that when we discussed the matter at an earlier stage the Minister said that the cost of changing the provision would be some £60 million. That may be the theoretical cost, but what is the actual cost to the extent either that overpayments are not recovered or the cost to patients in the sense that there is a delay in resuming their benefits and they never fully catch up? If we are to consider the importance of the point of principle, we need to consider it in relation to possible costs. I hope that the Minister will help us with that task.
As is often the case with work and pensions issues, it is very clear that this matter is of unbelievable complexity. If I were asked to explain which benefits were downrated and which were not, I would have the greatest trouble doing so. It is not surprising that those who suddenly find themselves in hospital and are told that their benefits will be downrated have some difficulty understanding that.
That brings us to the question of how much the deductions will be. In particular, what research has been done on that issue? Those in various charities, and so on, who are concerned with this problem have produced a list of items that remain as ongoing costs even when the patient is in hospital. They include rent, water rates, fuel, telephone rental, insurance, TV licence and rental services, warden charges, maintenance bills, car tax and insurance, other bills, and so on. In addition, some costs increase when a
1012
patient is in hospital—for example, the cost of having someone to look after a pet. We need an up-to-date appraisal.
One of my colleagues in the other place asked staff in the House of Commons Library to try to establish what research had been carried out on the matter, The Library was not been able to find any such research. This is the sort of issue that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, typically raises in this House. Apparently, no research has been done. However, the Library consulted officials in the department, who, I understand, were also unaware of any research, but who referred to the 1949 report, which made certain assumptions about costs. As the Minister rightly pointed out, things have rather changed since 1949.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there is still a Labour Government!
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister says that there is "still a Labour Government"—well, it is all their fault just the same. It is bad enough that the Minister refers to the previous Conservative government.
I am not going to blame the Labour government of 1945. My point is that their errors should be dealt with now. We need an up-to-date assessment. I strongly suspect that the amounts that are being downrated are in no sense up to date and may be inappropriate. I hope that the Minister agrees that further research in that regard is important.
The third issue involves problems on discharge. That issue divides into two parts. The first arises when people fail to notify their hospital that their benefits are overpaid and when the department tries to claw back that overpayment. That may cause considerable concern because the person may have spent the money in the mean time and, if he is on low benefits, he may have the greatest trouble repaying the sum. In many cases, the department may rightly decide that that is not a practical approach.
The other issue involves the question of whether such people are capable of resuming payments once they have been discharged, the amount being paid having previously been reduced while they were in hospital. An amendment moved in Committee sought to deal with that matter.
We need to take into account the state in which many people are discharged. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, rightly pointed out that we no longer have the kind of geriatric beds in hospitals that used to be available. I remember when, as a new Member of Parliament, I first went round the hospital in my constituency—a perfectly good hospital— in, I believe, 1965. The condition of its wards was absolutely appalling, quite apart from the stench. People are now discharged much more rapidly but perhaps in a state in which they may not be able to say, "I must be sure to get my benefits restored". A number of representations that we have received involve particular cases in which benefits were not restored. In one case, I gather, that had not been done after seven months.

1013
I came across a case only the other day involving someone who had been discharged from hospital. If we need to judge whether that former patient could deal with this kind of complex problem, we must consider the fact that when he got home his family asked him, "What is that in your arm?" It was the needle that had been used for injections, and so on. The person was so unaware of what was going on that he had not noticed the needle until his family pointed it out to him. It is important to do all that we can to ensure that benefits are resumed at the earliest possible moment.
The amendments that I have tabled are simple and clear-cut. We need to consider clearly between now and Third Reading the extent to which that problem, which is a growing concern to many, can be improved, if not solved totally.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, after two such excellent expositions on this issue, I do not intend to speak for long. Along with other noble Lords, I have recently been asking a number of questions in an attempt to do what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested; namely, to try to find out what actually happens. That is extraordinarily difficult to do. I have a particular interest in that matter. Another brief that I hold is for social care. As intermediate care increasingly becomes a reality for older people, there is an even greater need for clarity about the position of people receiving NHS care in different circumstances and settings.
I have two main questions for the Minister. The first is about the operation of the 28-day rule. If someone is readmitted to hospital within 28 days, his previous time in hospital is counted in the calculation of the six-week period. How many people on average per year are caught by the 28-day rule? That is extremely important, in view of the Government's new policy on rehabilitation and on moving people out quickly into the community; sadly, they sometimes have to return.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, several of us pressed the Minister on the cost of administering changes. She gave us some helpful figures at that time and in writing about the cost of the arrangement to the Department for Work and Pensions. In view of joined-up government, what is the cost to the NHS of administering the system? That is important because the Government are adopting this approach and, at the same time, talking about increased emphasis on having discharge plans for patients that are successful, that enable them to return home and that enable older people to resume their life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, gave examples provided by a range of voluntary organisations, including Age Concern—an organisation for which I work, as noble Lords know—of the distress that the arrangement can cause older people. Such distress has a severe impact on their physical health.
Those are the technical points to which I hope the Minister will respond. I add my strong support to those who say that it is time that the system was
1014
renewed. It was designed for the 1940s, when there was a Labour government, but they were of a very different type.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I speak as president of the Royal Mencap Society. I hope that noble Lords notice our new name. I support Amendments Nos. 2, 13 and 14, which were spoken to by my noble friend Lady Greengross and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Although the Bill concerns those in receipt of the state pension, it embraces others, too, inasmuch as the hospital downrating rules, about which we have heard a great deal, apply to all who are in receipt of state benefits, including those with a learning disability. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify which disability benefits will be excluded from the hospital downrating rules and which will be included. How my daughter, who has Down's Syndrome and is blind and virtually immobile through hip dysplasia, is expected to understand all the administrative niceties when she is admitted to hospital beats me, while her carers would find the whole operation both complex and burdensome.
Therefore, as has already been stressed, I hope that the Government will review the hospital downrating rules which are now outdated—after all, does one now receive a discount for the nights that one spends on a trolley?—and bear no relationship to the current state of the NHS and the costs of old age and disability.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words, first, in support of Amendment No. 2. While there is discussion about the future of this House's powers in relation to statutory instruments, I believe that it is necessary that we probe with some care the creation of a power to make regulations. This is our last chance. If we create a power to do something of which we later disapprove, we discover it too late.
Therefore, perhaps I may look at the words in Clause 2(6) to which Amendment No. 2 refers:
"Regulations may provide that, in prescribed cases, subsection (3) shall have effect with the substitution … of … a prescribed amount".
Is there any implied restriction in the text of the Bill on what type of case may be prescribed? We know what type of case is prescribed at present, but is there any restriction on what a future government, possibly of a quite different outlook from any party now in this House, might prescribe? If there is not, perhaps there should be.
With regard to the body of the main amendment, I remember spending a term working at Berkeley. As one went up the hill, house prices rose as they used to do in central Hampstead by approximately 1,000 dollars a foot. Academics tended to be somewhere between a third and half way up the hill. I once asked who owned the houses at the top and received the answer from a senior colleague: "Plumbers".
I am not sure whether or not that was fair on plumbers, but plumbers expect to be paid. People who are away in hospital and who do not keep their heating

1015
running at a level at which they might otherwise do tend to suffer from frozen pipes. Plumbers expect to be paid. Many expenses continue unabated and are perhaps increased because of a stay in hospital. Where a family is involved, one notices that, as the patient's costs may decrease, so the relatives' costs, especially in relation to transport and meals out, are liable to increase.
It has been brought home to me forcefully on my travels when speaking to meetings of the party in rural areas that that is particularly true because of the centralisation resulting from the closure of small local hospitals. In one area of Lincolnshire I remember it being represented to me that previously one could take an hour oil work and visit a relative in the local hospital. Now one had to drive 60 miles, take a whole day off work and lose a whole day's wages. I wonder whether account has been taken of that in the calculations.
I also wonder whether account has been taken of the amount of work that downrating creates for the NHS. In that regard, following the Starred Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I asked the Minister what cost was borne by the DWP. The Minister replied that there was none because the work was done by the NHS anyway. But I had not noticed that the NHS was short of work to do. Are we perhaps placing on it a burden which we have no call to do? And is this one case where we could reduce the costs of running the NHS without any injury to patients? Having listened to the Minister throughout debate on the Bill, I understand how difficult it is to simplify the social security system. But is there here, just once, the opportunity to do so? If we were able to do so, is there a case for saying that we should?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 13 and 14 as they all address the issue of hospital downrating. Amendment No. 2, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would remove the regulatory powers designed to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a lower amount in place of the standard minimum guarantee which would be payable to the claimant.
As I tried to explain in Committee, the intention in Clause 2(6) is to replicate the existing position. The Secretary of State should have the power to replace the standard minimum guarantee with a lower amount if, as a result of his taking no action, there would be double provision. That would be the case if someone was in hospital. It would also apply to people in prison or in, say, a convent, where they were fully maintained. If I may, I shall return later to Amendment No. 2.
Amendments No. 13 and 14 refer to benefits that are reduced under the provisions of the Social Security Hospital In-Patients Regulations (S.I. 1975/555). Pension credit will not be subject to those regulations, just as income support and jobseeker's allowance are not subject to them. Each of those benefits has, as pension credit would have, its own provisions regarding hospital in-patients. Therefore, if taken
1016
literally, the amendments would apply to a great number of benefits which are outside the scope of the Bill.
Therefore, I have assumed that, for the purposes of probing, the noble Lord was concerned to speak primarily about pension credit. I repeat that it is our intention that the savings credit element of pension credit should be payable throughout a stay in hospital. The arguments for that approach are well rehearsed we believe it is right to reward thrift.
Amendment No. 14 would impose an obligation on the department to restore a person's pension credit immediately upon his discharge from hospital, presumably at the pre-admission rate. The amendment is silent on that, as it is silent on how the department would fulfil what would be a legal obligation, unless of course the pensioner told the department the instant he was discharged.
As I stated in Committee, currently a person is required to notify the department of periods of inpatient treatment and will be required to do so under pension credit. That allows the department to make the necessary adjustments following admission or discharge. To reiterate the point, the department can act only upon the information that it has. When a person is discharged from hospital, his pension credit entitlement will be restored to the pre-admission rate of payment.
If the noble Lord would find it helpful, I could explain the practical steps concerning what happens in cases of readmission. Alternatively, I could hand him a copy of the procedures that we are giving to junior staff, or I could write to him with fuller details. I hope to allay his concerns. I understand that throughout he has been worried about possible delays in the reinstatement of benefit in the case of a pensioner who is fragile, having come out of hospital, and who, at that moment, is unable to cope, possibly having no money. I recognise that to be a perfectly proper concern.
Therefore, I have been trying to take steps to find out what the practical procedures are, and perhaps I may spend a moment on that. When a person is discharged from hospital, his order book is recalled. The assumption is made that the patient has been in hospital for more than six weeks and has therefore received a reduced benefit. Often the pensioner will return the book unprompted. But usually a recall notice is issued to the Post Office asking the postmaster to retain the order book and return it to the benefit office. Normally a pensioner obtains payment on a weekly basis.
Therefore, within the first week of payment the postmaster would be in a position to retain the order book. Usually—this may be helpful—a giro is issued to the pensioner for the first week and a new order book is ready to collect from the Post Office at the second week. That is the way in which reinstatement occurs. It is quite speedy; the target time is 15 days and most are restored within that time. If they are not, within the first or second week a giro is used to top up the existing reduced hospital benefit payment. I believe that that should meet the needs of the pensioner

1017
concerned. If the noble Lord wants further information, I shall be happy to write to him at great length on wads of paper but that explanation may reassure him. If payment is made into a bank account, there is no problem. If there is an order book, any delay can be topped up with a Giro to make good the hospital-reduced rate until the new order book comes through—normally within a fortnight. That may help the noble Lord on reinstatement.
The noble Lord asked about costs. The revenue that would be lost if one scrapped all downrating for pensioners would be £60 million and of the order of £100 million if one scrapped downrating for everyone on benefits. It would be curious to scrap downrating for only one group of people receiving benefits. I accept the general point that some expenses increase and some decrease. The noble Lord asked for precise statistics. The current average downrating for pensioner couples represents about 5 per cent of their total income after six weeks. For a single pensioner, on average it represents 18 per cent—which not unreasonably reflects the reduced cost of food, laundry and some reduction in heating costs for a single pensioner. I accept some of the broader points.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, know that this is not just a question of hospitals and downrating pensions or benefits but one that applies across social security. If one is a carer of a severely disabled son who received ICA before becoming a widow, one now receives the widow's pension, not both—yet the costs of being a carer possibly remain unabated. Nevertheless, one does not receive two payments for the same situation. That principle underpins the whole of social security law and its importance is recognised by the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I understand the principle that the Minister is explaining but are the vires in the Bill limited to the principle that the Minister is outlining?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not understand that question
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Bill give a future Government the power to do something over and beyond the principle that the Minister has stated?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords—by regulations subject to the negative or affirmative procedure that could and would be scrutinised by the House. The Secretary of State could decide to apply the principle to, for example, prisoners, people in convents and others in similar situations. There could be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to reduce the minimum income guaranteed by the state where the individual's circumstances mean that they are supported in other ways. I cannot envisage them all. There could be developments in, for example, intermediate care and other situations that we cannot
1018
conceive now but which might result in the potential for double payment—against which the Secretary of State would properly want to protect public funds.
Any such extension or activity would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative or affirmative resolution procedure.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister would add the word "control" to "scrutiny", that might put an end to discussion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is for both Houses to determine how to treat regulations. Whether this House appropriately has the right to overrule the elected democratic House is perhaps for argument between the noble Earl and me on another occasion. I was making the point that such a measure could not be smuggled in against the public good in future but would be subject to parliamentary procedures.
The Government do not believe that an individual should be paid by the state twice for the same contingency. Even if we could accept the amendment's financial and read-across implications, which we cannot, it is seriously flawed as it would allow prisoners and fully maintained members of religious orders to receive full benefits, as well as people in hospital. On that basis, I imagine that your Lordships do not want to proceed with the amendment in its present form but will want to revisit the issue at a later stage.
I would like to think more about some of the points that have been raised—including by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I do not want to raise hopes. It may be that we cannot meet any of their concerns but I will try to address some of them. Given also that the amendment has a much wider remit than the noble Baroness intended, I hope that she feels about to withdraw it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she kindly write to me regarding the disability benefits that would be affected?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I failed to answer also the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. The number of persons caught by the linking rules is, we believe, so small as to be insignificant. That is the sort of question of which one requires advance notice. If I can find a more precise answer, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord. Lord Rix, asked which benefits are unaffected by downrating. They include statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay and industrial injury benefits. The other benefits fall within the scope of downrating.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and express my gratitude for the time and consideration that she has given to the

1019
matter. I welcome also her acknowledgement of the concerns that have been expressed—and which might be addressed, even though the Minister does not entirely accept the amendment.
I want to give the proposal every chance of further consideration. Sadly, I cannot be in the House at Third Reading because I have to be abroad that day. However, I shall follow the proceedings with much interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Savings credit]:
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to an issue of concern in Committee—the rights of persons who are entitled to something less than a full basic state pension but who have during their lifetime accumulated other savings or built up other pensions.
On withdrawing my amendment in Committee, I thought that there might be some more juice in the orange and we can seek to extract it this afternoon. The three major categories likely to be affected are individuals who work overseas, persons with broken work records and— the largest group—women who have taken career breaks to have and raise a family.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, put down a helpful parliamentary Question, the Answer to which revealed that of' 1.4 million pensioners who do not have a full entitlement, only 300,000 were men and 1.1 million were women. In Committee, the Minister said that 92 per cent of men and 83 per cent of women have a full pension entitlement but the booklet Partnership in Pensions admittedly it is a couple of years out of date but the figures cannot have changed much—states that. 86 per cent of men and 49 per cent of women qualify for a full state pension, the latter representing a big difference from the Minister's figure of 83 per cent. We need to be clear about what is the real figure.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, in replying to this issue, seemed to face in two different directions. She referred to the national insurance credit available for "good cause" which meant that the position of widows was protected, thereby implying that this was not a big problem and not many people were vulnerable. However, she went on to say that there were serious financial implications of around £2 billion per annum. It seems to me that either we have a problem here that is serious or we do not. We need to be clear which it is before concluding our discussion.
If, as they have said, the Government want to give people an incentive to save for their retirement and they want to be fair, we need to be clear on why women are three times more likely than men to have less than a full basic state pension and why persons aged, say, over 50, who have incomplete pension records, could properly be advised to save. Even if they build up an
1020
occupational or other pension entitlement, the earnings guarantee will be withdrawn and savings credit will probably never become payable to any great extent. In those circumstances, it is much better for them to take no action and to draw the guarantee from the beginning, thereby breaking the rule of trying to encourage people to save.
I accept that the argument "you get what you pay for" has force. However, it has the least force where people have not been able to pay; for example, where they have broken work records or where their partners have chosen to save for their old age in ways other than entirely through the basic state pension. A number of amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who are ingeniously trying to square this important point. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I might add one or two remarks to those of my noble friend, who has spelt out the situation extremely clearly. I shall speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 9 and 12.
I have problems with this particular set of issues. I cannot help but feel that there is something wrong with what the Government propose. The simple point is that the object of the Bill is to reward and encourage savings. However, the reality is that the way in which the Government propose to do that in relation to people who have deficient contribution records means that many will receive no benefit as far as concerns their savings. It therefore seems to me that there is something wrong. The National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners has again been active in putting forward representations on that point. That organisation asserts that the Bill affects something like 75 per cent of its members. Therefore, it is understandable that it should be concerned.
As regards the problem we are discussing with this group of amendments, it seems that something like 1.4 million pensioners are affected. Three-quarters of those are women, one-third of whom will receive less than the full basic state pension. Therefore, this is not an unimportant issue. The crucial point is that the Government maintain that before people with savings but a deficient contribution record and a less than full state pension receive any benefits under the Bill, they will have to top up the deficient basic state pension to the amount of the basic state pension.
I have read carefully the Minister's comments in Committee. I was confused and I think she was confused. In our earlier debate the noble Baroness said:
"However, when it comes to the saving credit. I believe that it is right that we reflect the effort that individuals have made to build up their savings. If they have built up their savings but their retirement pension record is incomplete, it seems to me entirely appropriate that, first, their savings should be set against their incomplete retirement pension in order to bring … [it] up to that of the retirement pension".—[Official Report, 24/1;02; col. 1643.]

1021
I have great difficulty in reconciling the two parts of that statement. On the one hand the noble Baroness says that she is sympathetic to the fact that people should receive benefit from their savings. She then goes on to say, "But, of course, we shall knock that off until you get up to the basic state pension". That has the effect of those individuals not receiving any benefit from their savings. The two parts of the statement which I have just quoted seem to me wholly incompatible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the alternative position is that someone who has savings and an incomplete retirement pension would be rewarded as though he had a complete retirement pension; and thus that would be unfair to two people with different national insurance records?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I put that in the context referred to by my noble friend. One must distinguish between those who have a deficient record because they have decided not to contribute but would have been able to do so, and those who have a deficient record through no fault of their own. I refer, for example, to a woman whose husband has died and who becomes widowed before his record is complete. There is nothing that she can do about that. She has a deficient record. She is already penalised because she does not receive a full basic state pension. If, in order to cover that, she has made some small savings, under the Bill she will receive no benefit. It seems to me that that is not appropriate if we are to achieve the Government's record.
We discussed this in Committee. As a result, we have tabled somewhat different amendments. My noble friend has tabled his own amendment. Amendment No. 12 states, in effect, that the savings threshold will be the same proportion of the basic state pension as the individual's actual pension entitlement. If the basic state pension is, say, £77 and an individual with a deficient record receives only £50, the savings threshold for that person will be £50. Thus, if the individual's total income is over £50, whether from savings or second pension, that individual will qualify for savings credit in proportion to his contribution record. I hesitate, seeing my former permanent secretary at the Treasury sitting opposite. I am slightly worried that the arithmetic may not be correct.
However, at all events, we are seeking to ensure that if there is a difference between the two sides of the House on this issue, at least the individuals concerned with the deficient record should get some benefit from their savings. Otherwise, it seems clear that people who are already in this situation are not being treated as fairly as they might. They are already being penalised by the fact that their pension is less than other people's. That means also that people in that situation will be deterred from saving in future. There will not be any point in saving unless they can save so much that it takes them above the basic state pension. They will then receive a small benefit from the Bill.
1022
However, the particular group of people I have described will not receive any benefit under the Bill. That seems to be wrong.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Hodgson. Amendment No. 6 is a simplified way of saying roughly the same thing. Many women, particularly older women, will not have access to the protection which younger women have for the years when they were not able to contribute. They should get the same proportion of the savings credit as that which one has managed to put into a pension. Otherwise we are making an example of those people and saying, "It is not worth saving because it won't make any difference". That is the opposite of what the Bill is intended to do. Therefore, my somewhat back-of-an envelope amendment is just a simple way of supporting very much what has been said.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I speak to my Amendment No. 10, which is in the group. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I take as one of my starting points the debate at Committee stage. The noble Baroness gave figures about the number of people who receive the full basic state pension. From an answer to a question asked by a colleague in the other place, Steve Webb, my understanding is that as at March 2001 the number of men and women at present entitled to a full basic state pension in their own right is 92 per cent of the men and 49 per cent of the women. I understand those to be figures which the noble Baroness gave to us at Committee stage, which included the number of women entitled to a full pension as a result of their partners' contributions. That may have caused confusion for some of us.
I turn to the substance of the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will have noticed that I have paid a great deal of attention to the argument that she deployed at the Committee stage. She quite rightly drew the distinction between those who could have paid, but did not, and those who did not because they could not.
I do not make many claims for my amendment. I do not claim that it is either simple or elegant. But what I have attempted to do is to consider those women who could not make a contribution because they were looking after children prior to 1978 when home responsibilities protection began to be paid to women in such a position. At that time home responsibilities and child care were not recognised.
On the basis of evidence and records such as child benefit payments, my amendment seeks to reward those whose contributions record was broken for reasons which would not have applied to later generations. For example, Jane—I use that name for the purpose: she is my version of Frank—was born at the end of the war. She had her children in the 1960s and early 1970s. She was therefore out of the labour

1023
market at that time. She has now reached old age and yet again, and for the second time in her life, she is penalised.
She belongs to a generation of women who were told that they had never had it so good, but on reflection they appear to have had it uniquely bad. I am sure the noble Baroness will like my amendment because it is targeted, it is not universal and clearly specific. It is also based on evidence. I look forward to the noble Baroness welcoming my amendment with open arms.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate a cluster of amendments around different ways of approaching the issue of incomplete national insurance records generating an incomplete entitlement to a retirement pension on which, as I have said on a previous occasion, hinges the entitlement to savings credit. Because the amendments are sliced in slightly different ways I shall try to deal with each of them and show why they are in error. That will allow your Lordships to return to these matters at Third Reading if that is desired.
All of these amendments probe the question of how we treat people with incomplete national insurance records. We believe that those who have deficient contribution records are rewarded generously through the guarantee credit and can still gain a savings credit. The savings credit redresses an age-old unfairness. Those who have worked and saved and paid their full national insurance contributions, but have a modest occupational pension that does not float them off MIG, at the moment see no benefit for it. I believe that these amendments seek to undermine that policy and create new and different forms of unfairness.
I deal first with Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. The amendment could work in about three different ways and all are unacceptable. The first way in which it could work is that the pensioner was entitled to the maximum savings credit multiplied by the proportion of state retirement pension actually received. For example, if a pensioner had 50 per cent retirement pension and a second pension of £30, the pensioner would be entitled to 50 per cent of the maximum savings credit of £13.80, which will give the pensioner £6.90.
A second way of doing it is by multiplying all the pensioner's qualifying income by the proportion of state retirement pension actually received. Therefore, if a pensioner had 50 per cent retirement pension and a second pension of £30, the pensioner would be entitled to a savings credit of 50 per cent of the qualifying income of £30, which will give them £18 instead of £6.90 as in the first example.
All these ways are deeply complicated according to which way one interprets the matter. One can multiply one sum against another. One could arrive at a situation where someone has a savings credit of £6.80, £9 or something like £18. All these figures ensure that the pensioners will receive some amount of money. But in all cases that will generate other forms of unfairness.
I turn now to Amendment No. 9. I am puzzled by the noble Lord's amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, did not move it at Committee stage, but he
1024
spoke to it on the first day. He spoke rather wistfully of the maiden speech in which he made a somewhat similar set of points. I read that speech and l thought that it would have done old Labour proud. So I congratulate the noble Lord who was clearly well informed on the issue. He expressed the desire again that those with deficient contribution records should be rewarded under the savings credit scheme.
What I find so odd is what the noble Lord proposes in his amendment. It does exactly the opposite. As drafted, his amendment would have the effect that only the actual amount of contributory social security benefit received by the claimant should be taken into account as qualifying income for the calculation of the savings credit. That may not be what the noble Lord intended, but that is what we intend. Therefore, there is no question of our deeming receipt of more state retirement pension than that received. So we welcome the noble Lord to the ranks of the converted.
I now turn to Amendment No. 12 which better reflects the noble Lord's considerations. Again, here are other variations of some of the same points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. They have the effect of reducing the savings credit threshold to an individual pensioner's level of basic state pension where it is below the full rate expected to be about £77.
We believe that there are four possible ways in which the amendment could work. There are four possible ways in which, under the noble Lord's amendment, one could receive a proportionate reward. The first, which is what I believe the noble Lord may propose, is to start the savings credit at an individual's level of basic state pension with a 60p reward for every pound. That option benefits those with incomplete basic state pensions more than those who have contributed to acquire the full national insurance rights. That is because the savings credit would start at a lower point and build up by 60p for every pound until it reached a maximum at the guarantee level of £100.
For example, let us consider two pensioners with a total income of £100. John has £40 as a basic state pension and Simon has £77. Neither is entitled to any guarantee credit. However, pensioner John would start building up his savings credit, based on the noble Lord's amendment at £40 and receive 60 per cent of the remaining £60 of income equivalent to £36. However, Simon would receive just £13.80 since he had only £23 above the basic state pension.
On that first working of the noble Lord's amendment, it would mean that a pensioner with a lower national insurance contribution record would have a final higher income after pension credit than a pensioner with the basic, full state pension. We do not believe that that is fair because he is getting 60 per cent of the difference between his RP and the full sum.
The second way of working the matter is at an individual's level of basic state pension. with a proportionate reward for every pound, which goes back to the version of the noble Baroness. That option would build up the savings credit at a proportionate rate according to the individual's basic state pension rather than starting it as basic state pension and increasing the entitlement to 60p in the pound.

1025
This option would mean that a pensioner with a record of fewer national insurance contributions would also have a higher final income, after pension credit, than a pensioner with basic full state pension.
Let us consider two pensioners receiving a total of £100. George receives £40 basic state pension; Albert receives the full £77 basic state pension. Neither is entitled to any guaranteed credit. However, George, who has the £40 basic state pension, would start building up the savings credit from £40 at a rate of 30p for every £1—that is assuming that £40 basic state pension is approximately half the full amount.
George would, therefore, receive 30 per cent of the remaining £60 of income, equivalent to £18, and his final income would be £118. However, Albert, who has the full basic state pension, would receive just £13.80 savings credit, since he is only £23 above the state pension. Therefore, Albert's final income would be £113.80.
I am sorry but the devil is in the detail. It may sound easy but the point is that somebody with an incomplete national insurance pension record—using the second method of calculation, which I believe is a method suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross would end up with more money than somebody who has paid his full whack. Now that cannot be fair. George would not receive a proportionate amount, but actually more. That cannot be fair, and I am sure that that is not the intention.
The third and fourth options involved in trying to work out the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, are a variation on a theme. It takes us back to a previous discussion that we either deem, or pay, the basic state pension to all over 65. I could go through all that, but that has been done before. However, that, again, would produce some of the unfairnesses that we have already discussed.
It would mean that somebody with a basic state pension of £40 per week and currently receiving an occupational pension of £25 per week would receive a total income of £65. He would receive a guaranteed credit of £35 to bring his income up to £100. Deeming his basic state pension to be £77 for calculating the savings credit means he would receive an extra £13, bringing his final income after pension credit to £113. Equally, he would now be better off than if he had paid his full national insurance stamp—and that is according to the third method of working out described by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, again overlapping with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. That still produces the perverse effect that somebody with reduced national insurance contributions is better off than somebody with the full number of contributions because he is benefiting from the savings credit coming into play at the 60p in the £1 rate between what he actually has and the final sum.
The fourth and final option is to pay all pensioners over 65 the basic state pension at a cost of around £350 million. But what is a few pounds between friends? That cost assumes that the structure does not change. Therefore, those on a category BL basic state
1026
pension would be uprated to a full BL pension and those on category A would be uprated to a full category A and so forth. Additionally, the cost would double if we uprated frozen pensions of UK residents abroad—about £700 million, but let that not stand in our way.
Again, that would not be fair because we would then find that two pensioners would be receiving very different amounts. The pensioner who had paid would be receiving the same as the pensioner who had not.
However, the first part of the debate was to suggest that the proportionate method is simple. I believe that it is almost impossible to work out the detail. All the ways that we have worked it out—and we have tried about seven different versions of modelling it produce the perverse situation in which someone with lower national insurance records ends up being better off than someone with a higher and a complete national insurance record.
The second thrust of your Lordships' argument is who actually stands to lose—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this may be an appropriate moment to let the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, catch her breath. Are we not right in thinking that the object of this Bill is to benefit those with savings? It will not benefit, in any way, those who have a deficient contribution record and whose savings take them up only to the level of the basic state pension.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes. Those people have not paid in their national insurance contributions. Had they done so they would have had lower incomes and found it that much harder to save. Therefore, that money is available for them to put into other savings vehicles.
I, for example, deliberately chose, by financial calculation, to take advantage of the married woman's reduced contributions stamp. I calculate that over the years I have saved many, many thousands of pounds. That is serious money.
For me now to come back and say, "Now please deem me as though I paid the full national insurance stamp and you, taxpayer, with a much lower income than mine as a university academic, should subsidise me", would seem to be unreasonable.
Obviously, I would not be a claimant of pensioner credit but the same principle would apply to the reduced married woman's stamp. One would be saying that because they were women, they should be financially compensated upwards irrespective of their situation?
The first point of my argument is that all the variants offered by the noble Baroness, or the noble Lord, on proportionality end up with the perverse result that somebody with lower national insurance contributions ends up with a higher income than someone with a complete record. The second point is who are the unfortunate losers?

1027
Let me go through those people who are going to be most affected. The majority of pensioners who are going to have less than full contribution records are likely to be included among the following groups but it is impossible easily to give easy numbers. Some will be married women who, like myself, opted to pay reduced rate contributions and stand financially to gain by many thousands of pounds over the years. Others will be married women, without children, who were not active in the labour market because they chose not to work. I do not believe that society has any obligation to reward them with a savings credit when they have not actually made good their basic retirement pension because they have chosen not to work and riot to pay national insurance.
Others will be recently arrived from abroad or those who have worked abroad and have not contributed to a reciprocal scheme. Again, the option is available for anybody who works abroad to develop alternative savings vehicles if they are not able to contribute to the national insurance scheme.
The major two groups that have been identified are those women who have been carers and those who have been self-employed. I appreciate that some women have been carers for whom home responsibilities protection and the introduction of credits for ICA in 1976 came too late to boost them to a full pension.
As far as carers' ICA is concerned, it is now simply too late to revisit the circumstances and determine whether they might have been eligible for a benefit that did not then exist. That would depend on the hours they worked; their relationship to the lower earnings level; their earnings and the like. We cannot revisit. We cannot presume people to be entitled to a benefit when the conditions for that benefit did not exist because the benefit did riot exist.
As for HRP, it is impossible to go back and find out what was happening 30 years ago in terms of the hours of caring; the earnings; and the relationship to LEL, which legitimises their access to ICA.
The same applies to HRP. The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Greengross, will know that HRP produces 20 years offsetting against the need for women to achieve 39 years national insurance contributions. Most women will be coming to the end of that period.
However, many women will have got protection because their youngest child enabled them to receive that protection in the 1960s and 1970s. Others will be on minimum income guarantee and will receive their protection in that way. However, I believe that it is impossible to revisit the circumstances of the early 1970s and the 1960s and try to determine the facts of retrospective entitlement. No benefits that I am aware of are retrospective in that respect and I do not believe that we should do it here.
The final group—though one cannot distinguish one group from another—that might be covered, or be advantaged by these amendments were they to succeed, are the self-employed. The self-employed are liable for Class 2 national insurance contribution.
1028
Historically, there has been some blurring between the self-employed in the informal economy; those who are self-employed in their own business; and those who simply sub-contract their labour to others—for example, in the building trade.
In the past, for those who wanted to, those who were part of the informal economy or worked as subcontractors, it was all too easy to avoid paying national insurance contributions. Would your Lordships really wish to reward such people and deem them to have paid it for these purposes? I think that is deeply unfair.
I suggest to your Lordships that we cannot now go back and consider good or bad cause for these particular groups—-that is, carers, self-employed, and people working overseas. There are different circumstances associated with all of them and I think it would be unreasonable to do so.
However, there is a broader point relating to the technical side of the amendments. To treat those who have not contributed fully on the same basis as those who have would, I believe, perpetuate again the same sort of unfairness that exists now when someone says, "I've worked all my life. I've put some savings aside and I'm no better off than her down the road who's done nothing at all. And she's got the same income as me because she's getting MIG."
That is the basic unfairness that pension credit seeks to identify.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Perhaps I may make one point. I understand the Minister's astute reasoning. Is it not possible for the Government to set a top limit? No one should receive more than the proportion of pension which they have paid. Therefore, it could not just go on escalating so that they receive more of anything than someone who has paid a full national insurance contribution. There are many regulations which have exceptions or limits to them. In the same way, if one wanted, one could exclude people working abroad or self-employed people from this benefit. But on the wider point, why not set an upper limit, which would mean that they would always get less?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am addressing the tabled amendments. Obviously, if the noble Baroness wanted to come back with further amendments, we could see how they would work. As the amendments stand, all the versions that we devise end up with the perverse consequence that someone who has incomplete records can receive more money than someone with complete moneys.
The substantive second point is whether this is the right method of proceeding. What I was trying to say in conclusion was that we have introduced pension credit because people believe that if they have modest occupational savings of, say, £100 per month—for example, a widow or a low paid local authority worker—they are no better off than if they have no occupational pension at all because MIG floats them

1029
above that figure. Under our proposals, they would keep £60 of that £100 per month, which is why they are better off. We are addressing a perceived sense of unfairness.
If we said to someone out there, "Well, you have got an incomplete national insurance record, but none the less you will receive some of the savings credit even though you have not got up to the full £77 entitlement of retirement pension", that would introduce an equally valid sense of unfairness between those who have contributed fully and those who have not—especially when we are dealing with groups such as the self-employed, those who have been abroad, those married women who have taken the reduced married women's stamp and saved money in the process and those who have alternative savings vehicles and have chosen to exercise those because they have been living abroad. At the end of the day, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, believes that this is a right and proper way to approach the matter. I think that he is wrong. On many issues I can see where he is coming from but there may be technical difficulties to meet. But I think that this is unfair. The savings element of pension credit hinges on the £77 retirement pension. If one has not contributed to that, it does not seem right that one should be rewarded for those moneys one has above it.
That is our position. I must suggest to those proposing the amendments that the Government are unable to accept their reasoning and therefore their amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for her characteristically thorough response. Obviously, there is much there for us to read through. As she has rightly pointed out, the devil is in the detail. I just emphasise where I and maybe some other noble Lords are coming from: this is about people who have deficient state contribution records through no fault of their own. It is about incentives to save; and it is about fairness. It is all very well to talk about the £77 hinge, but there are people who will have made quite substantial contributions to reduce their costs to the Exchequer and to the state and who will receive no credit for it. I am sure that we shall all want to reconsider the matter having read the remarks of the noble Baroness. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 14 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"WITHDRAWAL RATE
No one drawing a state pension credit shall suffer a withdrawal rate of benefit greater than 40 per cent."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the important area of the withdrawal rate of benefits. The Bill proposes that income beyond the £100 minimum guarantee level will be reduced by 40 pence in the pound. The story does
1030
not end with the withdrawal of the savings credit. The Government say in the Explanatory Notes that the rules that apply to housing benefit and council tax benefit will in the main reflect those of pension credit. But it appears that that generosity does not extend at the margin.
The Minister wrote a very interesting letter to my noble friend Lord Higgins, which was copied to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in which she illustrated the rates of withdrawal of the various benefits including the income tax effect. The standard withdrawal rate for savings credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit is 91 per cent. The Minister outlined that matter in Committee. But with the impact of tax, which is complicated by the individual circumstances of the pensioner, that can rise to a staggering 93 per cent.
That is a very difficult level of withdrawal to contemplate as being fair, just and reasonable. Perhaps just as importantly, the Bill should be promoting savings. It does absolutely nothing to promote savings if the pensioner can see the trap waiting for him once his savings get beyond the level of generation of income which pulls these withdrawal rates into effect.
In Committee, the Minister told us that large numbers of pensioners would be involved if the amendment, which we have before us again today, were agreed to and that it would be very costly. I think she also said that there would be no cash losers under the Bill. I hope that she will forgive some scepticism from these Benches, given the complexity of the matters and with so much presumably needing to be dealt with by regulations which are not yet before us.
The biggest problem is that these high marginal withdrawal rates-91 and 93 per cent—are a massive disincentive to savings for the future pensioner population.
I fully accept that Amendment No. 15 is inelegant. It seeks to cap those withdrawal rates at 40 per cent. I should very much like to find a more elegant formulation for it. For now we remain to be convinced that it is right to have a withdrawal rate of more than 40 per cent for all of the benefits taken together that are caught by these withdrawal rates. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 would ensure that no pension credit recipient suffered a marginal deduction rate of more than 40 per cent. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in her final remarks said 40 per cent " all taken together". As I explained in Committee, the costs associated with that are £17.5 billion, almost nine times as much as our pension credit proposals. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not mean to raise the cost for pension credit by such large amounts, even from those Benches. So I shall assume that she is referring only to ensuring that those pensioners receiving the savings credit do not suffer marginal deduction rates of more than 40 per cent.
That is not what she said. But that may be what she actually means. I should not wish to put a £17.5 billion tag around her neck, particularly as we go into the

1031
weeks running up to the Budget. To do this, we would have to extend the allowable amounts in housing and council tax benefits to the end of the savings credit so that single pensioners with weekly incomes up to £135 and pensioner couples with incomes up to £200 are passported on to full housing and council tax benefits. The cost of doing that, which is a much more modest amendment, is £600 million. It is poorly targeted because the pensioners who would gain from that amendment would all have incomes in excess of the guarantee credit.
So my first response is that the cost—whether it is the biggie or even the littlie—is extremely expensive and going to the wrong people. I do not think that the noble Baroness really wants that.
The second point made by the noble Baroness, which I believe is the thrust behind the amendment, is her worry about marginal deduction rates, or MDRs, which will be 91 per cent for the approximately 8 per cent of pensioners who may receive the taper out of the pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit—with a further 2 per cent, or so, on top if they also pay tax. I take her point: no one likes high marginal deduction rates. The noble Baroness's language of incentives would be right for people with an option of increasing their income who chose not to do so because of high MDRs. Who is in that situation? People in work who know that, if they work for another £10, they will keep only 9p, 90p or £1. Those are the people who will he deterred by MDRs.
Where there is a high MDR but a fixed income, no change in behaviour will follow. If one is a cash gainer—my understanding remains that there will be no cash losers under the Bill—the concern of the noble Baroness about MDRs is unrealistic. I make that distinction. MDRs are a problem for those in work who have the option of increasing their income but may be deterred because of what are effectively very high rates of tax. For people who have fixed incomes, such as pensioners for whom such choices do not come in to play, MDRs can in no sense be a deterrent because there is nothing to deter them. The net result—this is important—is that they will remain cash gainers by between £7 and £11 a week, on average, from pension credit.
Given those two points—first, that the amendment would be excessively expensive, whichever figure the noble Baroness chooses, and poorly targeted; and, secondly, that what matters here is not MDRs but whether pensioners are cash gainers, as they will be—I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for the cost estimates, which are indeed significant. In speaking to the amendment, I stressed the impact on future populations of pensioners and, in particular, the incentive effect on saving. Marginal deduction rates will not work only on those in work, who may see only 7p or 9p left from £1 of earnings. They may well have an impact on those
1032
considering the effect on their position for marginal extra saving—the sacrifice that they would make while they work to save for their retirement; or, indeed, their decision once in retirement whether to keep their savings or to start to draw them down and spend them.
We have constantly been talking about the effect of the Bill on the incentive to save because it is important that there should be a great incentive for individuals to save so that they do not become a long-term burden on the state. We have constantly asked about that future pensioner population, and have often received answers about the effect on the current pensioner population. Those are two distinct issues. However, I heard what the Minister said, in particular on cost. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Exclusions]:
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 39, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment in Committee but it was the last amendment considered on the first day of the Committee stage, so it was late when we reached it and was considered only briefly.
As the Minister covered the substance of the issue in Committee, I shall, again, be brief. The issue here is whether couples should be assessed individually, as is the case with tax, or together as pensioner couples, as is the case for benefits. A move towards integration will help us to move from the language and practice of means-testing to the language and practice of entitlement, which I think we all want.
My question is simply whether the Government intend eventually to integrate state pension credit with the tax system. I know that that could be done only in the long term. When asked in Committee whether the Government were going to disaggregate, the Minister said:
"The answer to that is no".—[Official Report. 24/01/02; col. 1690.]
That seemed a pretty clear answer. Yet in the consultation document published in November 2000, I, for one, was encouraged to read that the intention was indeed to,
"look at the tax system to consider whether there could be alignment with tax rules … smoothing the path to greater tax/ benefit integration in time".
Am I to assume that the Government are not now making any effort along those lines? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall he brief. Pension credit is designed to meet household need—the guarantee element—and to reward savings that are at present being absorbed by the relative generosity of MIG. The whole of social security is based on the concept of a household. The Government have no intention to disaggregate. There is, therefore, no likelihood that the pension credit would be or could be disaggregated, as the noble Baroness suggests.

1033
Under the noble Baroness's proposal a woman who had a wealthy husband or cohabiting partner with little personal income but who was, none the less, in a wealthy household would be entitled to pension credit, even though her partner or husband had a very high income. That cannot be the basis of social security; it never has been. I must say that we shall not go down that road. I am sorry, but it is right to be absolutely clear. With that assertion—it is not really an explanation, it is an assertion—I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is rather disappointing because we appeared to be moving in that direction, but I understand. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Fixing of claimant's retirement provision for assessed income period]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 17.
Page 5, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) Where a recoverable overpayment of state pension credit has occurred as a result of an error which was not caused by the claimant, in the determination of the amount of an element of the claimant's retirement provision, the amount recoverable shall be limited to the amount overpaid in a period of 12 months or the assessed income period, whichever is the shorter."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to restrict the amount that the department can recover from the claimant where the overpayment is due to an error not caused by the claimant—in other words, official error. The amendment would allow the department to recover one year's overpayment, but no more. It differs crucially from the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. in Committee, in that it applies only to official error, not those made for any other reason.
Official error is not an insignificant problem. The department's own figure to September 2000 relating to income support and jobseeker's allowance is 3 per cent. There is no reason to think that the error rate will somehow magically be less when dealing with pension credit. So many pensioners may be affected by official error. We also know that old people are fearful of getting into debt and do not like it. The fear of debt especially of repayment—could well affect the uptake of pension credit. We know that the non-uptake of means-tested benefits generally is high. Some people say that the introduction of this greater level of means testing will mean another great leap upwards in the amount unclaimed by entitled non-recipients.
It is fair to pensioners to restrict the recovery of amounts overpaid where that is not due to their error. It would also act as an incentive to the department to reduce that high official error rate. It might even promote the virtuous outcome through which the department benefits and pensioners need not fear the consequences of overpayment due to error made in calculating their entitlement. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try to allay the concerns of the noble Baroness. The
1034
amendment is redundant because overpayments that arise through no fault of the claimant—those due to official error—are not recoverable under Section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Pension credit is included in that provision by paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT
The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the performance of the pensions service that shall include—

(a) an estimate of the take-up of the state pension credit;

(b) the costs to the department, including details of staff, telephone and information technology costs;

(c) service level indicators for judging the performance of the pensions service in providing the state pension credit; and

(d) an analysis and commentary of the performance of the pensions service judged against the service level indicators."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the exchange on the previous amendment, we seem to be making progress.
The amendment deals with the question of an annual report and the question of performance indicators. It is what would be described at a Labour Party conference as a composite motion, as it brings together the two matters that we discussed in Committee—I am not sure why that should be a matter for amusement—as recorded in Hansard at cols. 198 to 204 for 29th January.
When we had that debate. there was a widespread view that it was extremely important that the specific question of how the new pension service performed in relation to the state pension credit should be transparent, accountable and focused. Although this is, in no sense, an exhaustive list, we suggest that, in particular, there should be an estimate of the take-up of state pension credit. The whole issue of take-up is absolutely crucial, and there is disappointment in all parts of the House about the low level of take-up. It is a matter that gives us all concern. We must hope that the level of take-up as far as concerns the pension credit is reasonable and that the department will succeed in ensuring that those entitled to it do, in fact, make a claim. More generally, the level of take-up has been giving us cause for concern with regard to a great many benefits.
Secondly, we suggest that the costs to the department should he set out, so that we can discover each year how efficiently the department has operated the scheme. In previous debates, the Minister has put much stress on the fact that the new pension service will rely heavily on telephone services to reach the constituents of Members of another place. It should also rely on information technology, but, as we know from the experience of the department, it is not easy to

1035
take advantage of modern technology in the field of social security, where matters are so complex. Those are two particular areas where such a report should operate.
In the second part of the amendment, we are concerned that there should be suitable indicators for judging the performance of the service in providing the state pension credit. At the end of each year, the report should contain,
"an analysis and commentary of the performance of the pensions service judged against the service level indicators".
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Fowler, who, as a former Secretary of State, has great experience of the area of social security, emphasised the importance of post-legislative scrutiny. He quoted a particular example from his own experience. It is certainly the case that we have not given sufficient attention to the matter in the past. In replying to the earlier debate, the Minister said that there was, of course, the department's annual report. I see that the Minister is waving such a report, but I doubt that it is really a bestseller. Quite rightly, the Minister is laughing. I have a nasty feeling that the annual report, which covers the whole range of the department's activity, does not normally come to the fore of noble Lords' daily reading—or even annual reading.
It is, in a sense, a completely new benefit, and we want a focused report that the House can appraise each year. It is right that we should have that, and it is equally right that it should be in addition to anything that may be said in the department's annual report. More particularly, it is important that it should be clearly set out in the Bill, when we are introducing a new benefit of this kind. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I apologise for the slight disruption to your Lordships' deliberations earlier. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that my mobile phone is not with me in the Chamber; it is somewhere else. Perhaps in days to come, when the information services on pagers are improved, noble Lords will be able to get an estimate of their pension credit via their pager.
I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in this matter. Noble Lords will remember that we had a long debate in Committee about benefit take-up. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that we had then, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right to suggest that the scale of the change—a change that will bring almost half of the pensioner population into the scheme and is proposed in a framework Bill—represents art enormous risk for the House to take. It seems right that we should have a detailed and comprehensive look at the workings of the scheme in years to come. The DWP annual report may not be a best-seller, but I am sure that it will become bedtime reading for some of us. The operation of the scheme must be examined in significant detail.
1036
The Minister kindly wrote to me about the plans for research to follow up the research into why pensioners do not claim MIG. It is helpful that that research will go ahead, and I look forward with great interest to hearing what it says. All the way through our deliberations, I have expressed the fear that a scheme that, to the Minister, may be simple mathematics is. in fact, complex in its operation. It will be particularly difficult for lay people to explain to pensioners. We know from the existing research that one of the key factors in benefit take-up is informal information from people such as doctors, nurses, care assistants and other pensioners. The role that pensioners play in explaining to other people what the benefit system offers is often underestimated.
For all those reasons, I believe that the noble Lord is right. I strongly support him on this matter.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment, although not the idea that it is like a Labour Party composite. I always thought that those were the worst possible motions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would like to tell the House that the Labour Party has since abandoned that procedure.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I am delighted that it is, at last, coming into the 21st century, as far as such matters are concerned.
That should not, in any way, dent the argument in favour of the amendment. I support the amendment for the kind of reasons that I set out in Committee. We should concentrate more on post-legislative scrutiny than we have done. We should check on how legislation has been and is being implemented. That is what matters most to the public. Certainly, we should aim to improve pre-legislative scrutiny, as every political commentator in the country urges us to do, but some of the biggest mistakes in recent years have occurred when a Bill has actually been implemented. It is an administrative fault. It is a management error that can defeat the intent of Parliament and. if I may say so, can defeat the intent of the Ministers who introduced the legislation in the first place.
In Committee I gave one example where such an error had occurred. I have to apologise to the House because I understated the case. It is not usual for me to understate a case, but on that occasion I did so. I spoke of the widows of thousands of former soldiers deprived of many millions of pounds in pensions, in some cases for as long as 50 years, through a blunder by the Ministry of Defence. The Income Tax Act 1952 was misinterpreted. It was interpreted correctly by the Royal Navy and the RAF, but not by the Army. I pointed out that that went on for around half a century. However, in fact we now know that it could have gone on for much longer than that and that the mistake could go back not to 1952. but to 1919. Indeed, had it not been for one very persistent gentleman, I am not sure whether the mistake would ever have been discovered.

1037
I have read the exchanges in the other place which took place yesterday, I understand that the department concerned is still looking into the details of the case, and rightly so. However, I do not think that anyone could deny that a serious error was made. In fact, it is an extraordinary position. That case shows how an administrative failure can carry on year after year. I think that we need to guard against it and I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend seeks to achieve that.
The other case I mentioned was that of widows' rights under the state earnings related pension scheme. Those were changed in the Social Security Act 1986. They were made quite openly in a Bill that I actually introduced. The Bill was debated in Committee, it was controversial and Statements were made on it. The Bill was challenged in Committee and its proposals were fiercely debated. Once the Bill became law, as Secretary of State I issued my own leaflet on the matter. Nevertheless, for some 10 years afterwards, the department gave out the wrong advice in one of the leaflets that it had produced. Let us be blunt: it was an administrative failure. I had long since moved on, but the leaflet was wrong and every report suggests that it never went anywhere near Ministers, although it went through the hands of over 100 civil servants.
I criticise the situation, but all I seek to do here is to point out that these errors can take place. They can go on for year after year, and they are to the utter disbenefit of the public.
I do not say that all these problems will be automatically solved by the production of an annual report, or even by an annual report of the kind proposed by my noble friend. However, I think that an annual report which sets out an estimate of the take-up of the state pension credit, the costs to the department, how the benefit is being implemented and the effectiveness of that implementation process is terribly important. However, what is utterly important is that this would be a report to Parliament. The fact is that it would not be a generalised annual report. No doubt an annual report from the department is a perfectly good idea, but necessarily that would be a generalised report covering a whole series of benefits, taking in the work of a whole department. What my noble friend proposes here is a specific report about a specific new benefit. It would provide us with the information that we want to know, covering areas such as take-up and how effectively it is being introduced.
However, the most important impact that such an annual report would have would be its impact on those who are administering it. It would become a reality through its accountability to Parliament in a way that otherwise it would not achieve. Perhaps I may put this as gently as I can: it would have a persuasive impact on everyone in the department because the facts of the situation would be known and reported. In other words, I believe that it would improve the position
1038
very substantially for the public and, perhaps I may suggest, it might even very substantially improve the situation for the Government and Ministers.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend in his amendment. My noble friend Lord Fowler has just pointed out that it would be a report to Parliament. However, I also see it as a report to the users, the customers of the Pension Service. I believe that those who are looked after by a government department are entitled to know the broad standards of service which they can expect. It forms a part of empowerment and would signal a move away from the notion of means-testing to one of entitlement, underlining the fact that people will be customers of the Pension Service. For that reason I believe that the service level indicators are important. Extracts or reports on those might even on occasion be sent to those in receipt of pension credits, because that would be another way of telling them what is being done on their behalf. Indeed, it could even invite their comments. I strongly support my noble friend.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are proud of the pension credit. There can be no greater endorsement than when someone says, "I wanted to introduce this and I wish that I had done so". We are proud of it because we believe that it will both address the problem of pensioner poverty and reward pension savings. It will do so in an elegant way but, as has been accepted on all sides of the House, also in ways that may become quite technical in the small print. Indeed, I believe that we have already experienced that earlier today.
Given that we are proud of pension credit and that we want to ensure a high take-up, we would not in any sense wish to keep back from the light of scrutiny the performance either of pension credit or of the Pension Service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, there will be a programme of research to establish exactly what we have achieved by introducing pension credit. We publish research reports. Indeed, on many occasions in your Lordships' House the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I have debated points such as "page 57, footnote 3". No doubt we shall continue to do so.
We now publish annual statistics on the take-up of the minimum income guarantee, something for which both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I pressed when in Opposition. I am sure that we will publish take-up figures for pension credit. The present Government have systematically set targets for performance in all the most important areas of the public service. We publish targets and we report our achievements. We will publish targets for pension credit and we will publish our achievement.
We shall also have the departmental report. I am sorry that it was not the bestseller that the noble Lord opposite and I would wish it to be, but I understand that it might have somewhat limited sales. Nonetheless, it provides a great deal of information. The Benefits Agency publishes a separate report providing further information about the administration of pensions and benefits. I expect that the Pension Service, of which

1039
pension credit in a sense is a sub-set, will report in a similar way. It appears rather inconceivable that the Pension Service, of which we are so proud, would not report in ways similar to that of the Benefits Agency.
More generally, Ministers are accountable to Parliament. Noble Lords regularly grill me, while in the other place Select Committees grill Ministers. If the House were to decide that the Bill should include a statutory requirement, of course that could not go beyond pension credit. From what I understand noble Lords wish to achieve here, I think that that would be too narrow.
Once we have completed our reforms, a person approaching state pension age will receive a single invitation to claim their entitlement. I suspect that the person will telephone the Pension Service saying that they wish to claim their pension. At that point Pension Service staff will go through all their entitlements, including basic state pension, SERPS, graduated pension and pension credit. I hope that once the IT is well founded, the administration will be seamless. To require us to unravel the administration of that entire seamless service in order to report on only one aspect of pension entitlement does not seem entirely sensible. Thus I have concerns about trying to report on pension credit in isolation. I understand that, given the Title of the Bill, noble Lords cannot ask for a report to be made on anything further than pension credit. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I wonder why the Leader of the House in the other place has referred to post-legislative scrutiny as an "enormous gap" in our defences?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take that point entirely. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in place because he would agree that that is something which I have always sought to set in place; that is, tracking devices. For example, before we move into major policy development, we should run pilot schemes to see what might happen. Once a policy is established, one should put in place tracking systems to see what may be the consequences of a policy and to ensure that no aberrations or perverse effects that we had not anticipated have crept in. In all that, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Having said that, the amendment is technically defective and could not stand as it is.
I take the point that your Lordships have made. I am happy to give an undertaking—although not in the form of the amendment, which, as I say, is technically defective—that we will report to Parliament on the level of performance in the transitional period while we are introducing pension credit. The Secretary of State will almost certainly monitor what is happening as pension credit settles down, and I am happy to undertake that we will report—embracing these questions, certainly, and others that have not been raised here—each year for the remainder of this Parliament. I shall certainly want to know what is happening and I have no reason to think that your Lordships would not wish to do so.
1040
We will include in the report information about take up, specifically on the savings credit. After three years, both Houses might reflect on whether it was appropriate to integrate this report into either the departmental report or the report of the Pension Service more generally. If it meets your Lordships' concerns that we will address this issue specifically for the remainder of this Parliament or for three years, I am happy to give that undertaking today because I share the intentions behind the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness and, in particular, to the points made by my noble friends Lord Fowler and Lord Hodgson. I am grateful for the Minister's sympathetic response to our proposals. None the less, the argument of, "Oh well, it would be nice if we could go much further", and then to point out that we cannot go further under the terms of the Bill does not get us very much in advance.
We need to make a start on this. My noble friend Lord Fowler rightly pointed out that it is important that post-legislative scrutiny should be made better. but I do not think that the noble Baroness's undertaking does that. Previous proposals have been placed on the face of a Bill—the most famous is the Rooker, Wise, Lawson amendment in regard to economic forecasts—and if they are on the face of a Bill they have a different effect to the kind of undertakings given by Ministers in the course of debates, which are then forgotten and not brought before the House again. Similarly, there is a case for a continuous process rather than for one which runs merely for the length of a Parliament and so on.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do, how does he address the point that it is a defective amendment? I did not want to hammer on about this point—I try not to get on to defective amendments because, certainly in my time in opposition, I am sure every amendment I produced was defective—but I am concerned to address the issue. If the noble Lord is seriously attempting to put this on the face of the Bill, what will he do about the fact that the amendment is defective and therefore cannot stand as it is and will have to be revisited in some way?
For example, the performance of the Pension Service concerns matters outside the scope of the Bill. Terms such as "service level indicators" require far more definition and may not be relevant in 10 years time, and so on. I could "destruct", if you like, the amendment on technical grounds.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that it was technically defective in the first instance, but she did not spell out why. Not specifying the precise performance indicators does not make the amendment technically defective. We have said throughout these proceedings, time and time again, that the whole issue of the Pension Service is relevant in relation to the state pension credit. This amendment is concerned with the state pension credit.

1041
I am not convinced by what the Minister has said about the amendment being technically defective. If, on reflection, she comes to the view that it is, we are at a very early stage of our proceedings, both in this House and another place, and we can certainly come back to the issue if need be. But we need to make a start. It is important that this should be on the face of the Bill and I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Not-contents, 143.

Division No. 1

CONTENT

Addington, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Attlee, E.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Avebury, L.

Kingsland, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Barker, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brookeborough. V.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Buscombe, B.

McNally, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maddock, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Masham of Ilton. B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Methuen, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Chadlington. L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Newby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Noakes, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Palmer, L.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fearn, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flather, B.

Peel, E.

Fookes, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Fowler. L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Freeman, L.

Razzall, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rees, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Greenway, L.

Rennard, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Haslam, L.

Roper, L.

Henley, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Higgins, L.

Russell, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Howell of Guildford. L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Inglewood, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Selborne, E.

1042

Sharman, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vinson, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington. L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Taverne, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wilcox. B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ahmed, L.

Harrison, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Andrews, B.

Haskins, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barnett, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hoyle, L.

Billingham, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bragg, L.

Brennan, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brett, L.

Jeger, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brookman, L.

Jones, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Judd, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Laird, L.

Chan, L.

Layard, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morgan, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elder, L.

Nicol. B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Watford. L.

Paul, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Filkin, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Radice, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Golding, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Greengross, B.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal. B.

Grocott, L.

Scrota, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sheldon, L.

1043

Simon, V.

Warner, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffc, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Whitaker, B.

Tenby, V.

Whitty, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Wilkins, B.

Tumberg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Varley, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Walker of Dortatster, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 15 [Income and capital]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 19 I must inform the House that. if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 20.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No 21.
The amendment seeks to remove paragraph (a) from Clause 15(1), thereby removing "earnings" from the ambit of "income" for the purposes of the pension credit. It would mean that all of a person's earnings would be disregarded in all pension credit calculations—-both guarantee credit and savings credit.
Amendment No. 21 is different. It seeks to introduce a specific earnings disregard based on part-time work of 16 hours, valued at the lowest wage rate; namely, the minimum wage. Both amendments would disregard all or part of "earnings".
In Committee, the Minister said that the position as regards earnings had not yet been decided. But it is an important issue-800,000 pensioners could be affected, and possibly even more if a younger spouse's earnings were factored in. We really do need to know exactly what the Government intend in regard to earnings. I do not believe that we should be expected to consider the Bill without knowing that. What the Government intend to do in regard to earnings is possibly one of the most important outstanding issues relating to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will now place the Government's intention on record. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, Amendment No. 20, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Barker and in my name, is grouped with this one.
The case for disregarding earnings is simply one of making sure that pensioners can carry on working for as long as is reasonably possible. With an ageing population and with people "ageing more slowly" the idea would seem to make sense. Our amendment is a modest attempt to drag out of the Government their thinking on the subject.
1044
If earnings are taken into account, the question will arise of certain people earning huge amounts of income and of the minimum income guarantee. The list of definitions of "income" in Clause 15 includes "income from capital" and,
"income of any prescribed description".
Surely these will remove the very high earner from the provision. I suggest that a provision such as that put forward in the amendments should appear on the face of the Bill, if not at this stage then very soon. It would probably improve the whole set of proposals.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have asked a number of times how earnings would be taken into account. They rightly warned me that they would return to the issue. I owe the House an apology. We are still considering the detailed treatment of earnings as "income" within the pension credit.
However, I welcome the opportunity of debating amendments covering the treatment of earnings and pension credit income assessment. What I can say is that, as a minimum, we shall bring forward the current earnings disregards from MIG. Any proposals will apply equally to the guarantee element and the savings credit element of the pension credit. We propose also that the present rule in MIG which excludes pensioners in remunerative work over 16 hours will not apply to pension credit. In effect, we have abolished the somewhat arbitrary 16-hour rule.
I turn first to Amendment No. 19. The amendment proposes to remove earnings from consideration as income within Clause 15 of the Bill and, therefore, from consideration within the calculation of both the guarantee credit and the savings credit of any pension credit claimant aged 60 or over. Earnings of their partners, of any age, would also not be counted.
I do not want to keep boring the House with the cost implications, but the cost of this amendment would he nearly £2.5 billion. That is more than the cost of the pension credit as currently set out in the Bill—precisely because so many people between 60 and 64 are in work. If we disregarded their income and made them eligible for pension credit, we would have some serious problems.
Amendment No. 21 would introduce a disregard of the earnings from 16 hours' work—equivalent to two days' work at the minimum wage. That would equal a weekly earnings disregard of around the first £65. However, the amendment would apply the disregard to all people aged 60 and over, which would cost around £350 million a year to implement, rising to £650 million a year if the disregard applied to both members of a couple individually.
Under Amendment No. 20, all earnings of those over state pension age would be disregarded. We cannot perpetuate in new law the same old inequities in the state retirement age. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to reconsider her proposals on equal treatment grounds.

1045
We have debated many amendments on this major issue. It may help if I explain the context. Currently, 50 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women aged 60 to 64 work, at wages that can rightly be substantial. In addition, a further 800,000 people aged 65 and over are at work. I am delighted that they are working. It is welcome for the economy and for them. Work for pensioners is not just about ensuring that we have a steady flow of human resources or trying to get the demographic balance right; it is about experience, handing on skills and promoting inter-generational understanding and respect. It is a key part of active ageing and social inclusion. We share those values.
We have no difficulty with promoting opportunities for older workers. The challenge is how best to do that. Some of the amendments that we have discussed today and in Committee would have disregarded earnings in part or in full for all people over the age of 60. The cost of a full disregard, at about £2.5 billion, is prohibitive. I hope that your Lordships also appreciate the Government's view that, taken together, the working tax credit, the abolition of the 16-hour rule and bringing forward the existing disregards in the income-related benefits best suit the needs of those aged 60 to 64.
That leaves the question of how best to promote the interests of those aged 65 and over. I suspect that that is what the noble Baroness is really concerned about, but the amendment does not narrow the issue down in that way. Again, there are three options in play. The first is simply to bring forward the existing disregards in the income-related benefits—the first £5, or, for couples, the first £10. The second is to disregard some higher amount. A disregard of £40 per household would cost £80 million, for example. A further possibility, which we have not debated so far, would be to annualise the existing disregards or some new ones. That might intrigue the noble Baroness, because it might suit smaller businesses by providing welcome cover for holidays or sickness without putting a pensioner to the trouble of keeping to the law as it stands.
One further option is to disregard all earnings for those over 65. Using old currency, where the things that mattered were income, earnings and capital, that proposition would abolish one third of the test. It would also put pension credit on the same standing as retirement pension, for which all earnings are ignored. However, it would come with a heavy price of perhaps £250 million—that is a quarter of a billion pounds. That is one reason why discussions are still going on about the issue. The cost is at odds with what would otherwise appear to be a decent social policy.
There is one further issue to consider. Clause 5 allows for the aggregation of household income, which is the only sensible approach. However, that also introduces a challenge of how to treat a younger partner's earnings in the income assessment when the claimant is aged 65 or over. Would the younger partner's earnings be covered by the claimant's disregard? Would those earnings be rewarded or just taken into account in the income assessment?
1046
The issue of earnings and pension credit is very much in our minds. It could be very expensive and it is complex. The issue reads across significantly to the other Bill that is currently going through the other House. Given that the issue is under active consideration, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not press their amendments, although I obviously expect them to probe our intentions further at Third Reading. I am only sorry that I cannot give a clearer answer tonight.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does she accept the tenor—or the push, to use her word of today—behind all the amendments that have been tabled? On all sides of the House, we are not seeking to reward those with high earnings. We are seeking to be as specific as we can to help people on low earnings. It has been intriguing to listen to the Minister. I have not been keeping count to see who has put forward the most expensive amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seems to be winning the lottery at the moment.
It is sometimes difficult to know what the Minister means when she cites a cost. Is it the cost of disregarding all earnings or the cost of disregarding earnings within a limited amount? I hope that the case is being made to the Treasury that the argument is about limited disregards to enable people to earn small amounts by doing small jobs that, in many cases, other people do not want to do. Such jobs can have a big impact on the social and care economy, which is currently in desperate shape. That is another factor that could be put on the balance sheet.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept that point. This is not meant to be disparaging to either side, but the issue is not so very different from the role of, say, therapeutic earnings for somebody on a disability benefit. The issues are not the same, but they can be read across. It is desirable for people who wish to contribute in that way to do so.
Any total disregard of earnings would have a very high cost. The £250 million that I mentioned earlier is not small change. It is a serious opportunity cost. If that became government policy, other things would not happen as a result, either for other benefits or in other areas. That is big money. However, by definition the money would almost always go to relatively low earners, because higher earners are likely to be disqualified on the grounds of capital, savings and the like. One could imagine perceptions of somebody having very high earnings and virtually no capital, but that is unlikely. In practice, a full earnings disregard would still probably target those whose capital or savings did not take them over the threshold. Nobody should treat that figure of £250 million lightly. It is seriously big money. Given that and the complexity of

1047
some of the issues that I have raised relating to those aged 60 to 65 and the question of younger partners, we are still arguing out the best way to take what we all regard as a desirable policy push. It may be too difficult, but we are giving it a try and discussions are continuing.
I ask noble Lords to accept that undertaking on my part and to revisit the issue, if they should choose, at Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister finally sits down, she has given us a figure for the cost of accepting the amendments, but, assuming that the lack of a disregard has a disincentive effect, can she give us the cost of not accepting the amendments?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords. It would involve some opportunity costs forgone. The assumptions behind pension credit relate to take-up numbers, capital, what is counted and other issues. I am not sure that it would be possible to do what the noble Earl has asked. I shall mull it over and if I have any useful information on that point I shall be happy to write to him, but I suspect that it will be difficult to prove. The noble Earl will understand where I am coming from on that.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that detailed response and for the detailed costings. We understand that she is grappling with the issues within the corridors of government. She will also understand that we and the Liberal Democrats are very concerned about how earnings will he treated. That is a major uncertainty that was not dealt with in any of the earlier documentation, including the Explanatory Notes, so some of us cannot see how the pension credit will work for some key groups. For that reason, I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to find that we shall return to the issue at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9. line 22, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this Act, a person's income shall not include any income arising from rent or the release of equity in a person's principal place of residence."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return briefly to an issue that we discussed in Committee. Although I was very grateful to the Minister then for her assurance that a person's home would not be included at any point in the calculation of savings—whether true or deemed—I am still not convinced that the Bill as currently drafted gives pensioners who own their own home as favourable treatment as non-pensioners who also own their own home.
For a good many years all political parties have agreed that people should be encouraged to own their home. There is obviously a range of reasons for that policy which is too broad to concern us in this debate. However, the state has recognised the desirability of such a policy in a number of ways—within the tax system, but most notably by making one's home capital gains tax-free on disposal. By allowing pensioners who own their own home to withdraw capital without completely swamping the savings credit, Amendment No. 22 aims to achieve a degree of equality.
Without rehearsing the arguments made in Committee, I believe that, without the amendment, people at the margin—I accept that we are dealing with the margin—will be discouraged from buying their own home. More importantly, pensioners will be encouraged to continue to hold a relatively huge asset in their general portfolio in a non-income producing form. Their house is bound to be a very large proportion of their assets, and they will hold it in a form that does not enable them to draw benefit from it. That clearly does not benefit them; it does not benefit their families; and it does not benefit the communities in which they live. I hope that the Minister will find it in her heart to think again on the issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the amendment, particularly in relation to equity release. When I was at Age Concern, we became involved with "safe home income plans"—Age Concern is still involved in them and publishes an annual guide to them—as such schemes are a very good way for income-poor but asset-rich older people to realise some of their capital to increase their income. The tax treatment of such schemes has changed quite a lot over the years, often for the worse. I should be very worried if they were made less attractive by any of the Bill's provisions.
In other words, we want to ensure that a person's entitlement to the state pension credit is not entirely wiped out if she takes out an equity release scheme to provide additional income to live on, to do repairs on her home, or even to do something frivolous—which can be the case, and should be quite understandable. Although it is of course a question of balance, I hope that the Minister will err on the side of generosity in this regard.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I too should like to explain briefly why I support Amendment No. 22. As I understand the position, if a pensioner holds on to his own home, it will not be part of his capital and there will be no deemed income from it, whereas if he decides to enter into one of the equity release plans, either an income stream or a capital sum will come into the pension credit calculations. I am struggling to see how it is logical to say that holding on to one's own home has no pension credit consequence, but that yielding the home's value during one's lifetime does have pension credit consequences.

1049
In Committee, the Minister talked about level playing fields in the retirement investments market. If I correctly understand what she has been saying, the proposed treatment will kill such investments stone dead and probably encourage pensioners simply to hang on to their own properties. What kind of level playing field is that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am obviously grateful for the opportunity to return to an amendment that we considered in Committee. However, I am not sure that my arguments have advanced from those I offered in Committee.
In Committee, I gave information about what would happen if a pensioner drew a lump sum against the value of his property or a home income plan. I promised to write if the information that I gave then, quite quickly, was incorrect. I confirm that what I said was correct. Therefore, if a person draws a lump sum for no specific purpose the amount would be treated as capital and a notional income of 10 per cent above £6,000 would be assumed. In turn, the amount of the notional income would be added to the qualifying income on which the savings credit would be calculated.
On the other hand, a lump sum drawn for a specific purpose such as home repairs would be ignored as capital. We may return to the issue when we discuss capital and income. However, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that expenditure such as buying a car or taking the cruise of a lifetime would not be regarded as deliberately depriving oneself of capital to make oneself eligible for pension credit. Some of her concerns may be dealt with more fully in a later debate.
Any income—for example, in the form of annuity payments—from a home income plan would be treated as weekly income to be taken into account in the pension credit calculation and rewarded in the same way as other annuity income.
Our policy on equity release schemes seeks to strike a balance between reforming the capital rules, so that they are fair and simple, and avoiding destabilising the personal finance market by incentivising one form of providing for one's retirement above others. If we were to treat income from equity release schemes more favourably than other forms of capital—by disregarding such income, for example—the result would be to increase the incentives to save in this way with the aim of taking out equity release schemes.
On this and many other such issues, we have consulted extensively with the various relevant financial industries. They are all concerned that we maintain a level playing field between different forms of income so that we do not distort the arrangements that people have entered into over time. I am certainly advised that, regardless of other equity issues, the arrangement proposed in Amendment No. 22 would have such a distorting effect
To give your Lordships a little reassurance, I should add that income from equity release will be treated more favourably in pension credit than it is under
1050
current MIG arrangements. As income, it would be eligible for a savings reward, and as capital it would be eligible for the savings reward on any notional income over the £6,000 disregard. The income will therefore come into play for the savings element but will not be disregarded.
I come now to the issue of income arising from rent. In our previous debate I explained that the number of pensioners likely to be affected by the provision would be small. About 5,000 pensioners currently claiming MIG are receiving income from rent, usually from boarders or lodgers. Currently, there are various disregards depending on the terms of letting or subletting. A disregard of £4 or £13.55 per week is applied for lettings without board, and a weekly disregard of £20 is applied for lettings with board.
This is a complex issue which—like PLRs or royalties—we have not yet finally settled. However, we intend to cover the detail of the level of future disregards in regulations. We are seeking to simplify the rules as they stand. We think that about 10,000 pensioner households—of 11 million or so pensioners—entitled to pension credit will have income from boarders or lodgers. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the new rules we introduce for that income stream will be at least as generous. in all cases, as those currently in place in MIG. Indeed, the rules are already relatively generous.
Pensioners can derive income from their principal residence by renting out rooms or by taking out an equity release scheme. We shall no doubt revisit those issues when we come to debate some of the regulations. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am again grateful to the Minister for her response. I think that she has given reassurance on quite a number of points. However, she turned away at the critical moment and did not say whether the cruise of a lifetime would be included.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the cruise of a lifetime would not be regarded as a deliberate disinvestment of capital in order to increase one's eligibility for pension credit. As I said, however, we may return to that issue when we debate a later amendment. I could not resist trying to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—who is such a doughty fighter for the absolute right of older people occasionally to be frivolous—on the issue.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for that further reassurance. She also made a fair point about the need to avoid distortion in relation to different types of saving. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 23, after "capital" insert "over the prescribed threshold"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 25 with which it is grouped. These two amendments in my name relate to the level of capital or savings that will be ignored. They have the support of Age Concern. I am grateful for Age Concern's information on the matter.
Under the Government's proposals the first £6,000 of capital will not be taken into account. These amendments would increase that level to a minimum of £11,500 and require that figure to he uprated annually in line with prices or earnings. My aim in tabling these amendments is to make the system both fair and simple and to bring about greater alignment with other assessments.
All of us who have had any dealings with older people on low incomes know that the assessment of savings for income-related benefits has long been a major concern. I very much welcome the Government's positive approach to reforming the system. In Committee there was some debate on whether it was better to assess actual income rather than using an assumed income. I support the Government's approach for the reasons the Minister put forward such as providing a simpler, less intrusive system that particularly helps those with very small amounts of savings. I also welcome the fact that the Government listened to the views of organisations on this issue. However, I question whether £6,000 is the right level. Although I note that the department estimates that 85 per cent of pension credit recipients are likely to have less than £6,000, this is still a modest level for lifetime savings.
My proposed figure of 11,500 would provide a much better level of security and would also address concerns that some noble Lords have expressed about the notional 10 per cent rate for savings over the £6,000 threshold. Under the proposed system there is a danger that some people with modest savings, say, over about f 12,000, could actually be worse off than under the original plan to assess actual income. By ignoring a higher level of savings that problem would be addressed while still providing most benefit to those with the least resources. It would also further simplify the system by ensuring that even more pensioners were taken out of the savings assessment altogether.
My other aim is to ensure alignment with local authority care assessments. Currently for people in care homes £10,000 savings is ignored for income support and £11,500 for the care assessment. Tariff income starts at different levels of saving. It is no wonder that people find charging systems confusing; I think that we all do. Perhaps the Minister does not find them so. but she must be the only person who does not. I understand that £11,500 will also be the amount that should be ignored when people are charged for care services at home under new guidance that will be implemented by the time the pension credit is introduced. So, a common threshold of £11,500 for both pension credit and local authority assessments
1052
would make the system easier both for older people and for staff, including the new employees of the Pension Service who must understand and take in a great deal of information quickly.
I know that the Government are aware of the need to co-ordinate assessments for different benefits within the DWP and across other departments. A good example was the Minister's statement in Committee that the pension credit assessed income rules will apply also for housing benefit and council tax. I very much welcome that. However, aligning capital limits would be another important way of joining up systems.
Finally, it is important that capital limits are regularly uprated so that they maintain their real value. With social security benefits that often does not happen. For example, the level of savings ignored for income-related benefits remained at £3,000 from 1988 to 2001 and is still £3,000 for people under 60. I have suggested a formula for annual uprating but there may be better ways to do that. I understand that the Department of Health is planning regularly to uprate its threshold and the important point would he to keep the levels aligned.
I accept that placing a level of savings on the face of the Bill may not be the best way to achieve my aims. However, I very much hope that the Government will he able to give careful consideration to the principles behind these amendments, which I believe would help achieve their aims of a fair and simple system targeting help on those with low and modest incomes. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, made a powerful case for the coordination of capital limits at one level. The multiplicity of limits is confusing for pensioners. The logic of amalgamating benefits seems to me to he difficult to resist. The requirement to uprate the capital threshold—whatever that threshold is—is an extremely important one even though inflation measured by the retail prices index is, according to the Government's target, 2.5 per cent. That is roughly where it is at and where it is forecast to be. Even that modest level of inflation over a relatively small number of years has a serious eroding effect on capital. It takes only eight years to lose value of well over 20 per cent. That aspect is extremely important.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word in support of Amendment No. 25. We are aware of constant pressure to husband parliamentary time. The Minister and I know very well that the issue of uprating can take a great deal of parliamentary time. I mean no denigration of the efforts of the Minister, which I very much appreciate, when I say that a clause of this kind might save us both a very great deal of time in future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, proposes in Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 to insert the value of the capital disregard, and the requirement to uprate it annually,

1053
on the face of the Bill. She proposes that we align our capital disregard with the local authority capital disregard for support with residential care, nursing homes and home care, but also that we should go further and uprate the disregard every year by either earnings or price inflation, whichever is the greater.
I am sorry to keep coming back to my next point. However, I am intrigued by the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for the amendment. Any increase to the level of the capital disregard inevitably carries a cost. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has any idea of what the sum might be in terms of the amendment's provisions.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is going to tell me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am indeed. Just for the fun of it I might go over today's proceedings to see what sums those on the Benches opposite envisage spending. Leaving aside the £17.5 billion, which I agree was a little offside as it were, my current figure is something like £3 billion. However, the clock is ticking and we are doing quite well. It will be fun to revisit some of the expenditure proposals.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, when we vote in favour of such expenditure I shall let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the noble Lord now merely talking about words and no action surely not? The cost of such an amendment, if we were to accept it as it is, would be £500 million a year—half a billion pounds. Alternatively, of course, we could seek to make it cost neutral by recovering that sum by increasing the notional rate of return on capital above £11,500. I wondered whether the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would propose that. I considered the sum involved. I am happy to tell the House that to make the provision cost neutral we would have to go for a rate of return on capital over £11,500 of 20 per cent, and probably nearer 25 per cent. I am not sure that that would entirely commend itself to the Benches opposite.
Costs in the longer term could also increase because of the incentive to switch away from pensions as a form of saving for retirement. That is the more serious point that I have tried to emphasise throughout. The level at which we set capital disregard—the whole of what we have been talking about—is an important factor in maintaining the level playing field between pensions and non-pension investment vehicles. That is the serious point that I hope your Lordships take on board. The more attractive it is to use other savings vehicles—whether the PEPs and ISAs that we did not explore on the previous amendment, equity release, or any other form of savings vehicle because they are disregarded in some sense—the less attractive pensions, which are taken fully into account, become. As a result, we send out perverse signals. "Save
1054
anywhere you like so long as it is not in pensions" seems to be message from some of the amendments that we have considered. That cannot be sensible.
The Government's policy means that 85 per cent of pensioners who are entitled to pension credit will see any income that they receive from their savings ignored entirely. Furthermore, ignoring the first £6,000 of savings means that only pensioners with capital above £12,000 will face effective assumed rates of return that are greater than 5 per cent. The FSA and Age Concern asked us to go for the £6,000 limit but with a notional rate of return above that in order to maintain the level playing field from the FSA's point of view. We should heed its advice carefully.
The noble Baroness mentioned the analogy with local authority homes, and the point was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The reason why local authorities have a higher savings level is precisely because the private home is taken into account in terms of value, which is not done in relation to pension credit. I am not sure that the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Noakes, wish to go down that route. That is why there are significant differences—because the situations are different. They are apples and oranges in that respect. Languages of alignment are therefore deceptive unless one aligns other conditions, which would be seriously damaging to pensioners and quite unreasonable.
Within our proposals, we have included the requirement for the Secretary of State to review the amounts used to calculate the guarantee pension credit and the savings credit. We are required to undertake that annually and it will be scrutinised by Parliament. As part of that process, the Secretary of State will also review the level of the capital disregard and uprate it where he deems necessary. We believe that that provides the necessary safeguards and reassurances.
The first part of the amendment to align the arrangement in terms of local authorities but without taking into account housing has a cost of either £500 million or is cost neutral, which has a notional return on savings of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent. That must be unacceptable to noble Lords. Secondly, on assurances about the annual review being part of the uprating statements, I suspect that I will be able to clarify the situation.
I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment, but I am sure that she will be sorry that we are not spending yet another half a billion pounds on pension credit.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. The principle of simplifying the situation so that credits are coordinated as much as possible across departments is important. Perhaps more thinking on that could be done before we reach the Bill's final stages. I understand the Minister's explanation and, for the time being at any rate, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) A claimant may elect that income from capital may be calculated by reference to the actual income received or receivable, in which event subsections (2) to (5) above shall not apply to that income."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to give the claimant the option to have his income from capital calculated by reference to his actual income rather than using deemed income under Clause 15(2).
I spoke in Committee about the fiction involved in the savings credit using the deemed income approach, especially with the 10 per cent rate, which we are told the Government intend to use. I am aware that many pensioner groups expressed themselves content with that approach because it means that they will not have to bother with producing income vouchers and so on. The amendment accepts that approach for those pensioners who are content to be deemed to have income but it would give an option to other pensioners who may be adversely affected by the rules.
I have done some calculations on the basis of likely actual income streams earned by pensioners at 5 per cent, which is what they could get if they invested in gilts, or at 2.5 per cent, which is what they would get if they invested in index-linked securities or roughly what they would get if they invested in equities. I have shared the detailed workings of those calculations with the Minister in advance of today.
I shall share with noble Lords the bottom line of both calculations. A pensioner who invests his money to earn 5 per cent per annum will find that for every £1,000 of capital he has over the £6,000 threshold, the pension credit system will leave him with only 19p per week. His £1,000 of capital—the extra £1,000—will
actually produce him an extra income of £50 a year but the way in which pension credit calculations work will leave him with only £10 in his pocket. That applies evenly throughout the range of capital above £6,000 up to £35,000, which is roughly where the pension credit peters out. Put another way, there is an 81 per cent withdrawal rate for income from all capital over £6,000.
However. the real horror story involves pensioners who invested their money in index-lined securities or equities that earn 2.5 per cent. If a pensioner wants to protect the real value of his capital, he has to invest in a lower annual rate of return. Working with the same example, for every £1,000 over the £6,000 threshold, he will end up with 29p less income per week than at the lower level. That again rises evenly over all capital levels from £6,000 until the savings credit runs out. By the time that the capital rises to £16,000, the pensioner will have less than £100 in his pocket because of the interaction of the two systems—deemed income versus actual income.
The big message that comes out of that analysis is that there is a major disincentive to save. Why should any rational employee want to save for retirement if the result of every extra £1,000 capital that he saves is an extra 19p a week in his pocket or—worse—if he is
1056
in equity-type investments, he will lose 29p? There will be a real sense of injustice also among those affected in the existing pensioner population those with capital of more than £6,000—when they see what the deemed income rules involve.
I said to the Minister when I passed her my calculations that I cannot believe that her department and the drafters of the Bill meant to have that effect. I look forward to hearing her response. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords. I want briefly to support my noble friend. One of the difficulties with the Bill and its increased complexity is the fact that we are so rarely in touch with reality. There is "deemed" here and "deemed" there; we have 0 per cent return up to £6,000 and 10 per cent return thereafter. We agreed in Committee that none of that involves the real events that people will face out there in the real world. My noble friend's amendment therefore gives a chance to those who wish to do so to go back to the real world and assess what they are actually receiving from their savings, as opposed to the "deemed" system, elegant though it may be in terms of administrative savings; nevertheless, it means that we are some way distanced from reality. I very much support the comments of my noble friend.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Clause 15 radically reforms the treatment of capital in the pension credit income assessment. I remind noble Lords that no longer will pensioners with capital of £12,000 or more be automatically cut off from any help, as is currently the case. Savings below £6,000 will be disregarded altogether, ensuring that 85 per cent of pensioners who are entitled to pension credit will not have to tell us about their savings at all. We will also have a more realistic rate of return of 10 per cent for capital above £6,000; that is half the current assumed rate of return—that is, 20 per cent—under MIG. Putting the two arrangements together, our treatment of capital is five times more generous than under the present MIG system and the old income support system which, so to speak, we inherited.
Taken together, the £6,000 disregard and the assumed rate of return mean that the effective assumed rate of return for most pensioners will be well below 10 per cent. Pensioners will, for example, have to have capital above £12,000 to see an effective assumed income rate of more than 5 per cent. To turn the point around, 95 per cent—I believe that the figure may in fact be 94 per cent—of pensioners will have an effective assumed rate of 5 per cent or less.
I am told that words such as "deemed" and so on are not part of the real world. However, the real world to me is what 95 per cent—or 94 per cent—of pensioners will experience. Moreover, 85 per cent of pensioners will not have to return detailed information on that; that will take them further away from the intrusive questioning that they disliked in the past. The next 10 per cent or so will have an effective rate of return on their total sum of something under 5 per cent. That seems to be the real, and realistic, world in which we

1057
live. It is not a question of administrative simplicity for the benefit of the department, although that should not be knocked if we want transparency; it is a question of pensioners having an assessment once every five years and finding a simple way to look after their capital as most of them will have only small amounts.
That is what we are doing and that is the real world. It is not the world of high finance in which we would go into the difference between equities, gilts, corporate bonds and so on. That is not part of the real world in which the pensioners about whom we are talking—those with incomes from savings, second pensions or whatever of a maximum of approximately £23 a week—live.
The Financial Services Authority supports our reforms. During the consultation period, it asked us to take into account the returns which pensioners can obtain from their savings. It also asked us to consider the need to avoid penalising those who have chosen to save in a pension. That is why we chose the 10 per cent rate of return. The FSA agrees that that rate would enable it to give clear advice to savers about the benefits of saving in pensions. That was the FSA's advice to us. In its professional view, a lower rate of return, including the actual rate, as the noble Baroness suggested, would tilt investment away from pensions into other savings vehicles. That cannot be right.
There are practical problems and, again, the devil is in the detail. I shall toss this point into the arena because I appreciate the amount of work that the noble Baroness has carried out on it and I found her statistics interesting. I am grateful to her for giving me prior sight of them. For actual income from capital to be taken into account, claimants would have to work out how much income their savings earned rather than simply tell the Pension Service how much they had as a capital sum. But we know from consultation that pensioners do not want to go to that trouble.
However, the situation is worse than that. The proposal would make the operation of the £6,000 disregard extremely difficult. At best, a claimant would know the total amount of income that his or her capital yielded—that is, if he had kept his books in order, worked out all the figures and calculated what was monthly, quarterly or yearly, and so on. But it is unlikely that he would know how much income a proportion of his capital generated. If he had £12,000 in capital, £6,000 would be disregarded and £6,000 would be real return.
With that in mind, I should be interested to know how the noble Baroness proposes to calculate how much of a claimant's income is attributable to savings above the £6,000 disregard. She is suggesting that pensioners and decisions-makers have to make a complex choice. I have been trying to puzzle out how one might do it without reintroducing into the five-year assessment the 40-page forms that on previous occasions your Lordships rightly scorned.
1058
We would certainly need far more information from pensioners than we currently obtain. We could ask them to fill in the current self-assessment tax forms, as the noble Baroness and I will do when we work out our taxes, in order to determine how much of the income from capital is below £6,000, how much is above that figure and which bits are attributed to which. I suspect that it would work only if we dropped the £6,000 de minimis. But is that what the noble Baroness wants and would that, in turn, recommend itself to Age Concern?
In addition to the administrative difficulties involved, the amendment would also risk distorting the savings market. I spoke earlier about taking one form or another, but the amendment might, for example, discourage pensioners from saving in pension products and instead lead them to put their savings into low-interest investments. Obviously, there would be an incentive to go for growth over income in order to maximise one's entitlement to pension credit and to leave as much as possible to one's heirs. That might mean, for example, that pensioners would be attracted to low-income but risky high-growth products—one has only to mention emerging markets—as opposed to taking financial advice that would suggest corporate bonds, for example. Therefore, problems are involved. It is not our ambition to undermine equilibrium in the savings market or to skew incentives against pensions.
I understand that the proposed amendment may seem to provide a fairer way of proceeding. Yet, given a choice between the Government's proposed policy and Amendment No. 26, most pensioners with low and modest savings would gain more from the former. The Government's policy means that more than 90 per cent of pensioners entitled to pension credit face an effective rate of return of less than 4 per cent, and 95 per cent an effective rate of return of less than 5 per cent or thereabouts.
On the other hand, the proposed amendment would cost a substantial amount—on this occasion, £400 million; the noble Baroness is joining the ranks of the big spenders here—and would generally benefit better-off pensioners with large amounts of capital who would seek to shelter it in low-income products.
The noble Baroness said that current rates of return are lower than the notional 10 per cent. Of course, they are. But the cross-over point at which notional income exceeds real income is around the £10,000 to £12,000 figure. Above that amount, which, as the noble Baroness will recognise, is the cross-over point, it is surely not unreasonable to expect pensioners to treat their capital as well as the income from it as a resource for them to draw on. There may well be less to leave as an inheritance, but it is not the job of pension credit to ask taxpayers who may not have much capital to fund the incomes of pensioners so that they can leave fairly substantial capital assets—£50,000 plus for a couple, for example, on the noble Baroness's figures—to their children. That is not our job.
Our aim has been to find a fair assumed rate of return on capital which does not undermine the balance between different savings vehicles on the

1059
market and to operate it in a way which reduces intrusion into pensioners' lives. We do not want to encourage pensioners to enter into the complexity of determining what is £6,000 exempt, what is not, and going for low income and possibly a more speculative return in order to shelter their capital for future generations. The clause, as drafted, achieves our ambitions. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Perhaps I may pick up one or two points. As she said, there are practical issues in relation to how the figures are calculated. I am not fazed by that; there are several routes by which one may do so. Given that we would be dealing with people who had opted to have their income assessed on the basis of producing all the vouchers or all the statements of capital, I do not believe that it would take much ingenuity to devise a practical way of dealing with the issue. It would not be difficult to do so if people wanted to follow that route.
The Minister spoke a great deal about the vast majority of pensioners having lower capital levels. I am sure that that is a true statement now. I wonder what current pensioners will think when they see the workings of the savings credit and realise that for every £1,000 they save, even if their money is simply on a good deposit rate and earning 5 per cent, they will end up with only 19p a week more in their pocket. Indeed, the Government may well be seeking to deprive pensioners of their capital by, in effect, incentivising them to run down their capital.
I am particularly concerned about a point that I raised earlier; that is, the incentive to future generations to save if they see that in these terms relatively high levels of capital—not necessarily relatively high levels overall—produce that type of effect. I understand that this is a simple approach, but I do not believe that it is fair to those who have capital above £6,000. I am sure that, if the department wanted to deal with the issue in a way that provided more incentives for savings in the longer term, it could very easily do so. However, I shall consider further what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 deletes paragraph (a) from Clause 15(6). Paragraph (a) allows the Government to prevent a claimant from deliberately depriving himself of his income or capital, thereby gaining a pension credit advantage. I have no problems with the concept of I hat and I can see that there will be circumstances in which the department will want notionally to reverse transactions. However, I tabled the amendment because I believe that we should be able to see exactly what mischief is intended to be dealt with.
In Committee the Minister gave a number of examples where the powers would or would not be used. I believe that basically she said that it was all right to spend money but that it was not all right to give it away. The noble Baroness may wish to look back at what she said in Committee, but that is the only principle that I can extract from what she said. I did not find it a very robust principle. I imagine that in practice the department would want to see how money was spent—that is, whether in the department's view it was something frivolous that would be set aside.
During discussion on the previous amendment, I talked about the low incentives relating to capital above £6,000 and whether that would incentivise spending. Will the department use the power to prevent a pensioner who decides that holding capital for 19p a week is not a particularly good thing spending his or her money on a holiday or expensive car?
If this were a Finance Bill—a hypothetical situation in your Lordships' House—dealing with tax avoidance, your Lordships would not accept such a power unless precisely the kind of avoidance were specified. The House is invited to accept a broad power without any general principles or a robust statement of the mischief with which the measure seeks to deal. Why is this advanced power being given to the Government without any statement on the circumstances in which it will be used? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my hope was that I had assuaged the noble Baroness in Committee but obviously I failed— and may do so today. The Government must have effective provisions to protect the new scheme against manipulation. The power will enable the Secretary of State to introduce, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, regulations that will give protection similar to that provided in other income-related benefit regulations. That is nothing particularly new. All income-related benefits must be protected against maximising entitlement. Past experience has shown that some people try to take advantage of schemes that do not sufficiently deter abuse.
If the amendment were agreed, money would be given to persons who had deliberately altered their circumstances to take advantage of a pension credit scheme, and the Secretary of State would have no means of preventing or curbing such abuses. In this amendment, the noble Baroness is not so much spending money as being on the side of persons who would otherwise be fraudulent. I am sure that she would not wish that either.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the amendment is about pensioners being able to spend as they choose. I am not talking about fraud on the system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if one deliberately deprives oneself of capital to be eligible for an income-related benefit, in my view that is fraudulent.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are not in Committee.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, there are principles and issues to be considered here. Is the Minister saying that whenever people spend their money, that is fraudulent?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, just now the noble Baroness accused me of saying that it was okay to spend money but not okay to give it away. She might wish to reconsider her line. I had hoped that the memorandum sent to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the further memorandum provided in Committee would have reassured the noble Baroness. There is nothing sinister about our intentions. The regulations are designed to deter people from manipulating their circumstances and to ensure that they do not gain from such actions. It is important that pensioners know that if people behave unreasonably, they will not gain. The noble Baroness would not want to hear that somebody down the street was receiving pension credit because she had done X, Y or Z.
It is certainly not a question of saying that spending money is okay but giving it away is not. I have never said so because that would be a silly line to draw. The question is of deliberate deprivation of capital to manipulate one's financial arrangements, to maximise entitlement to an income-related benefit. The test—which is well-established in case law for other income-related benefits—is ultimately one of reasonableness.
It is entirely reasonable to pay off one's mortgage; have major repair work undertaken on one's home; replace one's car; or have a once-in-a-lifetime holiday. It is not reasonable to give away one's capital or house—for example, to one's child—so that that capital asset would not be taken into account in respect of being taken into local authority care. Neither would it be reasonable to have one's pension paid to a third party, to maximise one's entitlement to an income-related benefit. The noble Baroness knows as I do that those would be improper ways of obtaining entitlement to an income-related benefit.
If anyone wishes to spend their money on a car or holiday, paying off their mortgage or house repairs, that is fine. We are concerned to check self-deprivation of capital to maximise entitlement. The distinction is not between spending capital and giving it away but between reasonable expenditure and deliberate self-deprivation of capital to manipulate entitlement. There is a wealth of case history to establish that line.
The noble Baroness said that there was a comparison to be drawn with the tax system. One can give away only £7,000 in any one year before it becomes subject to tax. The read-across that the noble Baroness suggested is not appropriate.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes: Oh!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness looks baffled. She said that the tax system
1062
has clear rules on what one can and cannot do. Under the tax system, one can give away only the first £7,000. Anything thereafter falls within the regime.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I was not referring to that particular rule. My general proposition was that the many anti-avoidance provisions throughout the tax system are always on the face of legislation—and are fully debated by Parliament before they are enacted.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the regulations will be available for your Lordships to scrutinise in due course under the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. The distinction to be made is between reasonable expenditure—we know what that is—and unreasonable manipulation and deprivation of capital. There is long-established case law.
The House is making heavy weather of something that is well established in social security principles. If anything, the pension credits scheme will err on the side of supporting pensioners in anything that they reasonably want to do—if only because of the five-year period. We will not come back and say, "Four and a half years ago, you unreasonably bought a new car." We will not be doing it that way, which is different from day-to-day income-related benefits. I suspect that pensioners will have a much more relaxed regime than people enjoying other income-related benefits. Nonetheless, one has to protect against a person having their pension paid to another member of the family, to maximise their benefits. The provision is one of the few protections against fraud and I am surprised that the noble Baroness is pursuing her proposal with such vigour.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we shall have to agree to differ. I shall think about the matter but still see no reason why the principles on which the department seeks to exercise its powers should not be laid before the House for debate. The Minister has explained today but that is not in the Bill—which would allow almost anything, without restraint. I shall carefully read the Minister's remarks and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 36, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 15(6)(c) allows the Government to treat a pensioner's income as capital and paragraph (d) allows capital to be treated as income. The Minister believes that the same argument used against Amendment No. 27 applies here but I suggest that the Government do not need such powers. In Committee, the Minister said that such provisions were commonplace in social security legislation from time immemorial—so I am challenging a well-settled orthodoxy.
In Committee, the Minister stated that Clause 15(6)(c) would be used,
"when a payment that is regularly received, or is made in relation to a particular period, should not be treated as income; for example, a pensioner may have loaned a relative some money which he or she is repaying monthly by instalments. Although it would be regular monthly income, it clearly would be in respect of capital and, therefore, we would want it treated as such".".—[Official Report, 29/1/02; col. 192.]
I do not know of any tax, trust or company law that regards repayment of a loan as income—and all have to grapple with the distinction between income and capital. All would come up with the answer that a loan repayment is capital. If it is relevant, accountancy would come to the same conclusion. My proposition, therefore, is that the Government do not need a power to say that it is capital because it already is capital. In Committee, the Minister gave no examples of how paragraph (d) would be used. Paragraph (d) states:
"capital is to be treated as income".
I wonder whether there is any example of where something treated in the real world as capital should really be treated as income in the Department, for Work and Pensions' world. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 seeks to remove paragraphs (c) and (d) from Clause 15(6). We had a fairly long discussion on what we used to call "Humpty Dumpty" clauses. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the purpose of the subsections.
Paragraph (c) contains the power to prescribe in regulation the circumstances in which income is to be treated as capital. Paragraph (d) does the reverse. Your Lordships, led by the noble Baroness, were exercised in Committee as to the circumstances in which the department might exercise those powers. I obviously cannot say what powers future governments may use. However, I can describe what this Government propose to do with them.
The powers already exist within income support and social security legislation and each use is detailed. There is no intention to do anything other than what is set out in the Income Support (General) Regulations. I can assure your Lordships that the Government simply intend to carry forward those provisions. There are no secret or sinister uses. I understand that the noble Baroness is drawing on her considerable experience in tax law. However, tax law has a different history from social security legislation. It is based on individual assessment, and so forth. We are rooting these provisions in terms of social security legislation and carrying forward provisions that are well known and well understood for income-related benefits.
The provisions are there so that we can deal with the strange situations people sometimes find themselves in. The powers are rarely used within income support and will probably rarely be used within pension credit. However, that does not mean that they are superfluous. I was pressed for an example of where income could be treated as capital. I refer to payments for discharged prisoners. The payment can be around £90 and is given to prisoners on discharge. It is ignored
1064
as income from income support. That enables the ex-prisoner to be entitled to income support immediately upon discharge. If we do not have that clause in similar legislation, that prisoner might be denied one or, more probably, two weeks' income support, which I am sure that your Lordships would not want.
Further examples—
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that that, treated as capital, should be disregarded?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords. I am saying that we are treating it in that situation as capital where it is actually a form of income. If we did not, that person would not be able to receive income support because that £90 would be effectively a week, or indeed two weeks, treatment of income. Otherwise, that person would lose entitlement to income support. I am surprised that the noble Baroness is baffled by that. It seems to me to be fairly straightforward.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I have no problem with that being disregarded. Indeed, there is a power in paragraph (b) to disregard. What I am querying is when income would be treated as capital.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall come on to when capital should be treated as income and when income should be treated as capital. I shall give further examples of where what may appear to be income would be treated as capital, which is what I understand the noble Baroness to he querying.
Similar circumstances would be if a younger partner were to receive an advance of earnings or a loan from an employer, or interest accruing on a building society account. Paragraph( d) contains the power to prescribe in regulations the circumstances in which capital is to be treated as income. As I said in Committee, it is intended that regulations made under this power will provide for the treatment as income of a payment that has the nature of an income although it could, as a result of general law, be viewed as a capital holding; for example, it is paid regularly or in relation to a period.
We envisage that this power will be used less frequently than the power to treat income as capital. The most frequent use of this power will include regular payments from an annuity. We will ignore the value of the right to receive an annuity and take only the actual payments from it. A further use would be receipt of a tax refund paid to a younger partner on return to work after a trade dispute, and so forth.
The uses to which these powers are put will be fair and transparent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I think I have heard the Minister more times than I have had hot dinners defend the regulation-making power on the ground of the Government's intention. I often find her persuasive when she does so. However, does she understand that the House must concern itself not only with the present

1065
intention of the present Government but with the extent of the power being created? Therefore, will the Minister direct her mind to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes; that is, that these powers are rather widely drafted for the intention ascribed to them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been dealing with social security for many years. Perhaps I may ask him whether in his experience he has not accepted the need for such a provision in almost every Bill dealing with an income-related benefit that he has done from the Opposition Benches and I have done from the Opposition Benches.
The first time this arose I was filled with the same I shall not say "synthetic anger"; I do not mean to be discourteous in any way to the noble Baroness—shock, horror and intellectual dismay at such a "Humpty Dumpty" form of words. On further scrutiny I have been persuaded how wise and benevolent such provisions are. I hope, as a result of the Bill, that the noble Baroness will share my perceptions on that. We need these powers. Otherwise, junior staff in departments could easily treat income as capital when that is inappropriate and capital as income when that is inappropriate. All the ways I have suggested are ways of handling the matter which will be to the benefit of the person concerned—unless alternatively there is a deliberate intent to defraud—and therefore will increase entitlement to a benefit, which would not otherwise be the case.
I can keep trying to produce more and more examples for the noble Baroness. However, in all the income-related social security legislation which I have ever dealt with, clauses were needed to this effect to prevent manipulation or to prevent what would be unfair treatment of a resource.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I believe we are at cross-purposes. I was trying to suggest that she simply did not need the powers. I know that she says she has had them all the time in social security legislation. That does not mean that she needs them. I was not drawing simply on tax law. I do not believe that there is any branch of the law which would have treated the loan in the way she has suggested. I believe we were discussing proper guidance to her officials down the line rather than any power which may be needed to treat something in one way or another.
All the examples she gave of how she would use paragraphs (c) and (d) seem to me to be either capable of being dealt with by general law or by disregard. I do not think she gave a single example of where she would treat income as capital; capital being something on which she would then calculate the deemed income. She told me about things she would not take into account. I fully understand that that is the purpose of paragraph (b). However, to change its nature into the reverse is something else.
1066
I hope that the noble Baroness might reflect further on the subject. However, I shall not press the point today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Regulations and Orders]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 29, I must inform the House that if that amendment is agreed to. I cannot call Amendment No. 29A.
7 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 29
Page 13, line 30, at end insert—

"(e) section 9(5),

(f) section 15,

(g) section 16, or

(h) section 17(2)"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, after many hours of amendments of unbelievable complexity, we come to a simple amendment. In moving Amendment No. 29 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29A. These amendments are concerned with the extent to which the provisions of various clauses in the Bill, which will be clarified—if that is the right expression—by statutory instrument, shall be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution.
As is normally the case, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform produced a helpful report which, on the whole, gave the department a pretty clean bill of health. However, having said that, attached to the report was a list of the various statutory instruments which were going to he covered. The list of delegated powers runs to three-and-a-half pages of small print. Therefore, it is right that we should probe exactly what the Government seek to do. In earlier debates in Committee and, indeed, before that, the Minister kindly said that she would provide the House with draft statutory instruments. I very well understand why that has been difficult for her to fulfil. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give some indication as to whether they are likely to arrive either before Third Reading, or certainly before the matter goes to another place.
Having said that, various points arise. The first part of the amendment is concerned with Section 9(5). which deals with the assumed income period. I am not clear why it is necessary to deal with that by statutory instrument rather than on the face of the Bill. Why do the Government need powers to vary that particular period, which we have already discussed at very considerable length? It has been explained very clearly from the Government Benches why the period has been set.
For the moment, I defer the question of how we should treat Clause 15 and turn to Clause 16, which relates to the retirement pension income provisions. Again, I am not clear why it is not possible to put that on the face of the Bill. What is of greater puzzlement is Clause 17(2) which will be concerned with whether an individual is a member of a household, or not—or even whether someone is severely disabled. Again, that

1067
is something we could have on the face of the Bill. We could discuss the provision, amend it, and, if necessary. vote on it rather than have it dealt with by statutory instrument.
I turn to Clause 15, which is now the subject of Amendment No. 29A. It was felt that it might be necessary to vote on this matter. I hope that that will not be so and that the Minister can give a sympathetic response. I would like explanations about the earlier Clauses 9(5), 16 and 17(2). I ask for an undertaking as regards Clause 15 because it is of very considerable importance. Those who have been sitting through the debates will well know that it is a question of how a person's capital and income should affect the state pension credit. I have referred to the Select Committee. It recognised that this clause leaves much to regulation and that some of it may be controversial. It cites particular items that the committee believes may be controversial. I shall not burden the House by going through them in detail.
It is our view that this power should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure at least on the first occasion when it will be exercised. The debate on the previous amendment seemed to give cause for some controversy as to whether the anti-avoidance provisions for social security purposes were appropriately dealt with anyway by statutory instrument. Some controversy also emerged on that subject.
One realises of course that there are differences between social security law and tax law. None the less, as regards anti-avoidance there is some case for adopting the same approach whatever the historical precedence may be, especially as matters which were previously regarded as social security business have, to a very large extent, fallen into the clutches of the Treasury. Can the noble Baroness give an example where anti-avoidance provisions in tax law have been introduced by statutory instrument? I believe that I am right in saying that that is not the case. In social security law, we have to consider whether it is appropriate for anti-avoidance provisions to be dealt with by statutory instrument rather than on the face of the Bill, where they can be discussed in detail, amended and, if necessary, voted on.
I trust that we shall be given explanations on Clauses 9(5), 16 and 17(2). Given what I believe on both sides of the House has been grave concern as regards how the definition of a person's capital income will operate in practice as regards the state pension credit, I very much hope that the Government will accept— on the first occasion, at any rate, when these matters are clarified and we have something in front of us in black and white—that we can have an undertaking that such provisions will be subject to affirmative resolution. I leave on one side the Government's proposals for House of Lords' reform which might inhibit us in this respect. That is a matter on which I have not so far expressed a public opinion, but I might be tempted to do so. Be that as it may, I
1068
hope that we can have an undertaking from the noble Baroness as regards the statutory instruments under Clause 15. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for allowing me to intervene at this point. Amendment No. 29A is defective, as drafted. As a result, it will have to be re-examined. I am relaxed as to whether or not these matters are dealt with by affirmative powers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was happy with our proposals as they stood. If noble Lords believe it is appropriate on the first occasion to have these issues treated by affirmative powers, I shall be very happy to take this matter back and produce a government amendment to that effect on Third Reading.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have accepted many times before fain Macleod's remark that "You don't shoot Santa Claus", and I do not do so on this occasion. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29A not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Administration]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 15, line 11, leave out "etc"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come finally to a matter which is not of enormous importance. In the schedule which this amendment seeks to amend there is a reference to national insurance numbers. When, at the Minister's invitation, we had the pleasure of discussing this matter with officials, there was some suggestion that there was no reference to national insurance numbers in the Bill. However, they are mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which reads as follows:
"In section I (which makes entitlement dependent on the making of a claim and production etc of national insurance numbers and other evidence, and limits backdating to 12 months etc)",
and so forth.
I have two queries on that. The expression "etc." seems to me rather odd in primary legislation. I am not absolutely clear whether that particular "etc." is in Section 1 of the legislation referred to or whether it is simply shorthand where the draftsman got so bored with the whole thing that he could not bear to spell it out. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us that it is an expression which is frequently used in social security legislation if not in tax law, and what is the reason.
More specifically, it seems strange to refer to legislation dealing with national insurance numbers when an answer that the noble Baroness gave me in March 2001 points out that there are very considerable doubts about national insurance numbers. It was pointed out that the data cleansing project had removed 182,000 national insurance numbers during the past financial year, which was more than in the whole of the previous Parliament. Having said that, the answer continued to the effect that the du to cleansing project will be stopped on 31st March.
The problem is that this schedule appears to perpetuate the idea that entitlement will be dependent on the making of a claim and the production of a national insurance number, but the department admits that a national insurance number tells one remarkably little about anything because there are a huge number that are either inaccurate, duplicated or fraudulent. In terms of assessing entitlement, has not the time come to say that there should be some better indication? Whether in the future that may be replaced by identity cards is not a matter we need go into this evening. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify the vexed question of the use of "etc" and, more particularly, whether it is really appropriate to continue to rely on national insurance numbers when, quite clearly, they are defective. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if I were to be given one of those word association tests and offered the word "etc.", I do not believe that the first word that would come back would be precision. On one famous occasion in 1640 the convocation of Canterbury required people to take an oath to the government of the Church, by archbishops, bishops, deans, "etc.". Many people believed, or effected to believe, that "etc." meant the Pope.
One London preacher maintained that "etc." was the curled lock of Antichrist. I do not need to express agreement with that preacher to say that the Government might be wise to choose a word a little more precisely defined.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, let me take the amendments together. The amendments do not actually have any effect on the Bill. They change only the wording of a cross-reference in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 and do not have a legislative effect. However, let not that get in our way when debating a substantive amendment.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 adds pension credit to the benefits to which the provisions of Section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 apply, as I am sure your Lordships are aware. Those provisions include making entitlement to benefit dependent upon a person making a claim and supplying a valid national insurance number, or the information necessary to trace or allocate a number.
Your Lordships will understand why we need to apply those provisions to pension credit. The gateway has to be secure; it is generous and we must check against any bogus claims. We must ensure that the person making the claim is who he says he is. Part of that process involves tracing a valid national insurance number, or allocating one if, exceptionally, the pensioner does not have one.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, recognises the argument. I suspect that the reason why he has tabled the amendments is not to exclude pension credit from the provision for Section 1, but possibly to have a debate on national insurance numbers. However, he disappoints me as I believe he really wants a debate about "etc.".
1070
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has suggested that "etc." in the cross-reference to Section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is unhelpful. In fact, the "etc." is there with the intention of being helpful to the reader. It indicates that Section 1 of that Act does not make entitlement entirely dependent upon the production of a national insurance number. The claimant could also establish entitlement by providing information which would enable the department to trace his number, or, if necessary, allocate one.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will accept that the "etc." adds to, rather than detracts from, the drafting of paragraph 2 and will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No. 30.
The noble Lord then discussed national insurance numbers and the question of ID cards. I accept that there is a question concerning the security of access to the system, through NINOs. We have 83 million national insurance records. Of those, 48 million are for the adult population of the United Kingdom. There are 13.5 million for people who have died but for one reason or another the account has to be kept open—for example, a surviving partner of a deceased spouse.
There are 12.5 million numbers that are not national insurance numbers but are child reference numbers given to children where a claim for child benefit is made and a further 2 million numbers for people who live abroad but are claiming benefits. The remaining 7 million include, for example, people from other countries who are working here, or who have worked in Britain, and UK citizens working abroad. That is the reason for the 83 million national insurance numbers.
There are issues of security—I do not challenge that for a moment. We discussed those extensively during the passage of the fraud Act. If your Lordships will agree, and unless there is an attempt to persuade me otherwise, I honestly do not believe that the last amendment of the day, on Report stage of a Bill concerning pension credit, is the right amendment on which to hook a major debate about the security of the national insurance system.
I suppose I could be tempted but I am not sure that the noble Lord who tempted me would he exactly popular with the rest of your Lordships. I hope that that information, particularly about the weight carried by "etc.", which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships as a most useful word, will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and bring the Report stage to a close.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, two days ago I received a letter from a lady in North Yorkshire saying she had been watching our proceedings on television. She made a number of points that she wanted me to take into account. I hope that anyone who has just turned on their television for the last five minutes will bear in mind the fact that for more than the past four hours we have been debating intensively a number of unbelievably complex amendments, with the object of carrying out our rightful function of seeking to improve the legislation.

1071
Therefore, I believe that a couple of minutes of demob happy exchange, stimulated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can he excused. I do not wish to press the amendments to a vote. It could prove a rather nasty shock were I to do so. I thank my noble friends—rather prematurely because we still have Third Reading—and noble Lords on the Benches opposite for an extremely helpful series of debates. I hope that we can clarify a number of points and return, if need be, to them later.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness who has been present the entire time, as is normally the case. She is always extraordinarily helpful and assiduous. Our task is to make the legislation better: she has certainly contributed to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, rises, perhaps I may remind the House that as the Unstarred Question is now the concluding business, the 12-minute limit on speeches is now extended to 15 minutes. That is not compulsory; noble Lords may wish to express themselves in less time.

South Pacific
7.16 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to ask Her Majesty's Govermnent what is their policy towards political support for, and economic aid towards, the island states of the South Pacific.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is just over 10 years since I asked a similar Question on the government's policies towards the South Pacific. It is, therefore, high time that we revisited the region, metaphorically speaking at the very least.
The Pacific islanders are culturally and economically diverse peoples, covering Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia, and have had a long history of association with the United Kingdom. We administered many of the island groups within the region. We influenced many of their political traditions and helped them to develop their institutions.
As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, in replying to the debate 10 years ago, we are left with,
"many historical, institutional and cultural links, and a certain residual emotional attachment to the region".—[Official Report, 22;1/92; col. 934.]
I very much share the view that my noble friend expressed on that occasion. Indeed, that was, in part, my reason for asking the Question then and for doing so again today. The Pacific islanders need to know that we retain an interest in their fortunes.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow is to speak today. He has had much more recent experience of the South Pacific than I have, and
1072
will, I believe, address his concerns principally to Vanuatu—an island group that I have not been able to visit since 1990 for its 10th anniversary of independence.
I should like to be more general in my approach. First, I am delighted to note that the United Kingdom maintains a very large number of diplomatic posts in the region. I understand that although a full High Commission in Kiribati closed some years ago, a deputy High Commission has now been opened there. That is all to the good.
Our ability to provide the necessary support and encouragement on a wide range of issues to the island states of the South Pacific, particularly those with fragile economies and environmental problems—and Kiribati certainly has those in large number—depends crucially on having high quality diplomatic representation. I know how grateful the South Pacific islanders are for the work that those missions achieve. I hope that when the Minister winds up he can bring us up to date by saying what countries have United Kingdom diplomatic representation in the region and whether there are any further plans either to increase, or, heaven forbid, reduce those posts.
Diplomatic posts alone cannot achieve what is needed to secure the necessary support for the region. I understand that the Department for International Development's Pacific office—formerly the British Development Department of the Pacific—is to close during this year. In recent years, the aid effort has been centralised through this office at Suva in Fiji. What is the reason for its closing? Perhaps the noble Lord can explain how it is proposed that the DfID presence will be maintained in the region after it has closed. Are we going back to separate aid posts at High Commissions? What about the various British bilateral aid projects, which have existed for many years and have brought a great deal of support to the region and which require continued attention? How can we adequately continue with those projects or develop new ones solely through multilateral agencies?
It is my belief that because of the very special—I would say "unique"—links which the United Kingdom has retained with the South Pacific, focused bilateral aid has been and is the best way to achieve the long-term goals through which we can support the South Pacific islands. I am not persuaded, from what I have gleaned so far, that what is proposed for the future will meet that requirement. Aid was, after all, described 10 years ago by my noble friend Lord Caithness as the "core of our policy" towards the region.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us the current figure for our government-to-government aid programme. Ten years ago it was around £10 million a year. To the best of my knowledge, it now amounts to only about £8 million. Why has it been necessary to make this reduction? What is the current flow of United Kingdom funds going to multilateral programmes? What are the agencies involved which will disburse those funds? Is the Minister able to tell us what the total flow of funds now is to the region from the United

1073
Kingdom, bearing in mind that 10 years ago it was about £35 million a year? Can he say something about private sector investment, which was running at about £500 million in 1992 and was forecast then to rise to £2 billion?
Of course other means of providing funding to the region have historically been provided. One route is through the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It has provided substantial expertise and investment, perhaps most particularly to Papua New Guinea. I very much remember in the late 1980s visiting the oil palm projects in Popendetta in Papua New Guinea. Is the Minister able to say what is likely to happen to any current Commonwealth Development Corporation commitment if there is to be any change in the status of the CDC? What views have been expressed by the region about the CDC's potential privatisation?
During the time that my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Brabazon and myself had responsibility for the South Pacific each of us visited the region fairly regularly. Some of my colleagues, with a certain amount of jealousy, said that we visited it far too regularly. There were two major fora for exerting general influence as Ministers. One was attendance at the South Pacific Commission Conference and the other was at the South Pacific Forum Partners Dialogue. I hope that the noble Lord when he replies will be able to say what has been the level of representation by the United Kingdom at those meetings over the past few years, perhaps since 1997.
Will the Minister spell out in particular the role of the United Kingdom now within the South Pacific Commission? It is my clear understanding that that role has now changed. But we were, after all, cofounders of the SPC in 1947. I certainly found that our presence at its meetings was hugely valued by our partners and those with whom we worked in the region. Not only were we serving the interests of the body which we had helped to begin for the benefit of the South Pacific region as a whole, but, more particularly, we had an acute interest in and responsibility for our own dependent territory within the region, Pitcairn Island. What is the status now of the South Pacific Commission and our involvement with it?
There are always wider issues to touch on within the South Pacific region. The countries bordering that region, such as Japan and China, or the domestic powers with territories within it, such as France, the United States and ourselves, have played a major part. It was largely through the South Pacific Forum dialogue that a number of sensitive or potentially sensitive regional issues were discussed by the island states with those bordering the region. Although unpopular, the United Kingdom felt constrained not to sign up to the Treaty of Raratonga because of our mutual interest in ensuring that the French nuclear deterrent remained viable. Thankfully, testing at Muroroa has now ceased. One slight impediment to our relationship with the island states has therefore been removed.
There are other matters. For example, we were influential in encouraging a moderate view towards the United States' wish to destroy chemical weapons at its Johnston Island facility in the late 1980s. That required the calming of nerves and a degree of understanding, which we were able to express in the region on behalf of those who suspected that there might be some risk to the Pacific islanders. Also in the late 1980s, we played a major part in supporting the understandable concerns of the Pacific islanders that long-line drift-net fishing, largely by the Japanese, was damaging not only the albacore tuna stock but also many other fish, birds and mammals in the region. I should be grateful to know whether the Wellington convention, which stemmed from the activities which we undertook at that time in relation to long-line drift-net fishing, is still in operation and whether that type of fishing within the region no longer exists.
Returning to some of our aid issues, perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say whether the Commonwealth fund for small states using residual British Phosphate Commissioners' money still exists. That is the money that came from our joint work with Australia and New Zealand in Nauru. If so, what is it being used to pay for?
Perhaps he will also say what is being done through the Heads of Mission Gift Scheme to enable our High Commissions to make presentations of useful equipment and suchlike throughout the region. Perhaps he can give us some examples of how that money has been spent and how it has been received within the Pacific.
I now turn to two countries in the Pacific which have been of historical importance to the United Kingdom. The first is Pitcairn Island, to which I have already referred. It is our only remaining dependency in the Pacific and we retain full responsibility for its administration through our High Commission in New Zealand where the Governor resides in his capacity also as High Commissioner to New Zealand. Can the Minister say what the population of Pitcairn now is; how its economy fares, particularly, in relation to what is generated from the sale of stamps or from any other means that might be found to develop its economy; and, if he can, what he believes to be the long-term viability of the island? We all know of its loyalty to the United Kingdom and, I am sure, we all want to see its population maintained and its links with the Crown developed as far as possible and certainly maintained.
When did the Governor last visit Pitcairn? Is there any prospect, in particular, of his visiting in this Golden Jubilee year? Are there yet any plans for a ministerial visit? I have long advocated that. When I had responsibility for this area, I found that that was very difficult to achieve. Perhaps with his increasing penchant for international travel the Prime Minister is considering a visit. It might take him some time; he might enjoy it; and we would probably manage without him. It is important that Ministers retain responsibility for those islands and somehow manage to visit them.
The other island group which has long interested us and which has an immensely strong bond with the United Kingdom is Fiji. Never has a country remained more loyal to the United Kingdom, and in particular to the Crown, than Fiji, independent though it is. It is a country which has been through troubled times over the past 15 years. I hope that the Minister can say where be believes matters now stand with Fiji and give us an assurance that the United Kingdom will do all in its power to retain an interest in and support Fiji, not only bilaterally but also through our joint work through the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Two countries that have played a particularly strong role in supporting us in our work to achieve stability and economic viability in the region are Australia and New Zealand. Both are members of the Commonwealth. Both have been extremely active in a variety of ways, not only in supporting the region, but also in complementing and working with United Kingdom efforts towards improving the stability and security of the region and furthering its economic advancement, often through their work in technical co-operation. It would be helpful to know that the strong bonds that exist between those countries and ourselves can continue to be of help in focusing and balancing political and economic aid efforts in the South Pacific.
The South Pacific is a long way from Westminster, but it contains a group of our island states that have consistently shown immense loyalty towards the United Kingdom. Our involvement has allowed us to maintain political influence there for stability and security, but it has also enabled us to be very specific in targeting aid towards the region. That aid has been very much appreciated; it is not enormous in the great scale of things, but a small amount of money has gone a long way.
It therefore concerns me enormously that the Pacific islanders should now be faced with our cutting government-to-government aid effort in terms of staff quantity and quality and the funding of individuals and schemes that have helped the islands to develop their own resources and initiatives. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, despite the changes being introduced by the Department for International Development, our overall effort in the South Pacific will not be diminished. If economic aid is likely to be reduced, will he encourage the Government to find other ways of enhancing our historic influence and support? If we feel economic restraints in this country, the far greater economic restraints in that region militate strongly in favour of government-to-government support, which can be properly targeted, rather than using solely the more diffuse method of support of multilateral agencies. That will inevitably weaken the United Kingdom's bonds, for which the island states of the South Pacific have always been extremely grateful.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in asking his Question, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur dealt generally with the South Pacific islands. I want, as he
1076
suggested, to address my remarks purely to Vanuatu, which I had the opportunity to visit some two-and-ahalf years ago. I suppose that I did so in part at the indirect request of the Foreign Office, in that we were on our way to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association annual conference in New Zealand and were asked by the Foreign Office if we would visit some of the smaller parts of the Commonwealth on the way.
My wife and I chose to go to Vanuatu. It is a beautiful island. It has a lovely climate, charming people, great poverty but at the same time a pride in its independence and membership of the Commonwealth. My visit could hardly be described as a holiday. Our then High Commissioner, Mr Malcolm Hilson, and his deputy, Chris Pool, were determined that I should be kept fully occupied during the four days for which I was there. I therefore had the opportunity to meet many of the ministers, to visit the courts and meet members of the judiciary, to meet the Speaker and see Parliament, to visit schools and to see many parts of the island.
One cannot do that without realising what poverty exists in that part of the world, but also, as my noble friend said, what friendship exists with this country and what value the people place on their historic links with the United Kingdom. I was struck, above all, by the enormous appreciation, stated time after time, that they showed for the desperately needed financial support that we gave them through bilateral aid and other methods.
We are not talking of large sums but, as my noble friend said, of small sums of money, carefully targeted and bringing enormous benefit to the recipient countries. I was therefore sorry indeed to learn of the decision—taken, I think, last summer—by the Department for International Development to phase out by 2004 all British bilateral development aid to the Pacific and therefore, obviously, among others to Vanuatu. That decision is crucial to our relationship with that part of the world.
I wrote to the Secretary of State, Clare Short, and her explanation in reply was that while we were phasing out bilateral aid, we would be providing aid through various multilateral agencies where our contribution would far outweigh our bilateral programme. I should like to make two points about that answer. First, to cancel out our bilateral aid, however small it may have been, sends a damaging message about our commitment to Vanuatu and the other islands of the South Pacific.
Secondly, although I accept that the overall sum given through multilateral agencies may total more than what was given through bilateral aid, is the Secretary of State saying that it will be so increased as to account for all that is lost by the removal of bilateral aid? I may be wrong, but I suspect that that is not so. If I am right, that means that there will be a net loss to the aid going to that part of the world.
I ask myself a rhetorical question: why has the department made that decision? It appears to be so contrary to the general policy that it is pursuing. If I

1077
may say so, I have the greatest regard for the Secretary of State. I must declare an interest, because she was my private secretary when I was a junior Minister in the Home Office and I have kept in touch with her on a friendly basis ever since. As understand it, her aim is to channel our aid to those parts of the world that are the poorest and, in particular, that have greater educational need.
Surely, Vanuatu of all places qualifies on both those counts. It is recognised as one of the least developed countries in the world and its educational opportunities are indeed slight—and worsening, because its population growth outstretches its economic growth. About 43 per cent of the population of Vanuatu is under the age of 15. Only a third of those children go on to any form of secondary education after the age of 11. Nor can it be said that it was financial restraints that required that the decision be taken. As I understand it, the department rightly claims that it has an expanding budget. Yet, we are talking about bilateral aid that, for the whole of the south Pacific, is £4 million and, for Vanuatu, is something like £300,000 a year.
I acknowledge and welcome two things that have happened. First, I am delighted to hear that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Secretariat, has agreed to fund the appointment of Judge Coventry for a second year to assist the High Court in Vanuatu. I am told that his help in dealing with the backlog of work in that court has been enormous.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that the department has been persuaded—I do not think that it was its original intention—to retain the small grant scheme under which the high commissioner can give small sums to particular projects. In Vanuatu, that amounted to something like £40,00 a year. That is the sort of figure that we are talking about. Yet, I was given one example in which the expenditure of a mere £1,500 to provide solar panel lighting in a primary school on one of the outskirt islands meant that the children could go to school in the evening, and there was an increase of 50 per cent in the number of children who stayed on into secondary education.
Having been to the courts, I know that they were implementing British law without any textbooks. I was, at least, able to persuade various friends of mine in this country to provide discarded books from their own library. We sent them to Vanuatu, where they were greatly appreciated.
Finally, I shall ask about the effect of the recent earthquake on our relationship with Vanuatu and Vila. Although it may not have been the greatest earthquake ever, I gather that the earthquake that hit the island on 3rd January was, as far as the islanders were concerned, the worst in living memory. What, if any, help are we providing to restore those damaged buildings? That is the sort of crisis to which, as the Minister said in her letter to me, this country would always respond. We do so for larger places, so I hope that we do it equally for those small islands. Is it true that part of Malapoa college, a secondary school under enormous pressure in Vanuatu, has been
1078
damaged? If so, I hope that we will, at least, offer to help to restore any damage. I understand that the Lycée, the francophone secondary school in Vanuatu, has been seriously damaged. It would be a great recognition if we were to offer to provide a small sum to repair that damage.
We all recognise the pressures on the Department for International Development. We realise that there are other demands for money from bigger parts of the Commonwealth. However, small sums spent wisely in Vanuatu and other small islands of the Pacific would bring benefit to their people that was out of all proportion.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for introducing the debate. I am particularly grateful to him for making me pick up information fast, in order to say something today. I cannot refer to events of 10 years ago. All I can do is remember sitting on a classroom floor hearing a teacher read from Sir Arthur Grimble's book A Pattern of Islands. I stand in awe of the noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who spoke with real, intimate knowledge.
Perhaps one can do something by just researching and trying to learn fast about an issue. The Question is in two parts. The first is to ask the Government,
"what is their policy towards political support for … the island states of the South Pacific".
My first job was definition. I had come to the conclusion that Australia and New Zealand were not included, but I was not at all certain about Papua New Guinea. It seems clear from the rather splendid book produced by the Department for International Development, Statistics on international development 1996–97 to 2000–01, that Papua New Guinea is included. If it is included, we are talking about a population of 4.6 million, with a further 2 million on all the other islands.
In examining the information that I picked up from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the various islands, I was struck by the elements of political instability, whether it is an armed coup in Fiji, a coup in the Solomon Islands, difficulties with the economy in Nauru, financial mismanagement in Tonga or, in many places, the specialism of the parliament in having votes of no confidence. Perhaps, democracy is a little brittle; perhaps, something should be done about democracy in those small states. Work is going on to assist emerging democracies in other parts of the world through the offices of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. One of my questions to the Minister is whether that area should be examined with regard to the island states.
The second part of the Question asks about the Government's policy on economic aid for the islands. Again, the DfID book is helpful. On page 114, repeated from somewhere else in the book, there is a schedule showing bilateral aid to the Pacific. It says that no breakdown by country is available, as bilateral assistance to the Pacific is provided under a single

1079
regional programme. If we read the numbers, we see that the figure was £12 million, then it went up to £26 million, then down to £20 million and down to £7 million. The last figure is £4.6 million.
When one has a lot of numbers, one must do something with them. The figures of 6.6 million people and £4 million mean that there is 60 pence apiece. So the bilateral aid to the Pacific islands, including Papua New Guinea, is 60 pence apiece. These are island states and islands are expensive. There are multitudes of islands. I think that it is likely that aid will be required to fund ports, harbours, airports, helicopter pads and items of that nature.
One island, Niue, has 1,865 people. At 60 pence apiece, the aid is £1,100. Of course I appreciate that it will not be allocated in that manner, but when we consider the level of aid in that way, it is clear that we are talking about very small money indeed. One wonders what can be achieved with such small amounts. I should have thought that a strong case could be made for looking at those islands where democracy needs help, but also clearly where the economies need help. We should bear in mind always that small islands are expensive and that these small islands, many of which form part of the Commonwealth it was indicated earlier that they have been loyal members—are deserving of support and should not be included in this book as "sundry other areas".
7 51 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur who is so knowledgeable and such a good friend of the South Pacific islands for initiating this debate. It is clear that his years as a Foreign Office Minister have left him with a lasting connection with and ongoing interest in the region. The debate has been extremely interesting and I have learnt a great deal from the well-informed contributions of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland. They have reflected exactly the high quality of debate frequently heard in your Lordships' House.
Even in the 12 or 15 minutes now available, it is difficult to do justice to such a large and varied area, so I shall concentrate briefly on just three aspects of the smaller islands, but I shall not include Australia or New Zealand. The three aspects are all inter-related.
The issues of health and poverty are two factors which are inextricably linked in the South Pacific islands, along with political development, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur in his enlightening speech. Perhaps the most difficult problem which affects all the islands is their economic development, hindered by isolation from foreign markets, lack of natural resources, inadequate infrastructure and, tragically, periodic devastation by natural disasters.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Glenarthur about the extraordinary impact that relatively small amounts of development aid can have on the lives of the people in these diverse and culturally
1080
rich islands. We on these Benches have always supported the development of bilateral aid programmes in the region, not the cuts mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carlisle. The close relationship the UK has had with the South Pacific islands through the Commonwealth should have a major and positive effect on improving economic and social development in the region: improving healthcare, reducing money laundering and encouraging political stability, the latter so important for foreign investment.
Secondly, I turn to the health of the South Pacific islanders. The levels of obesity and chronic weight-related diseases are growing at an alarming rate in the Pacific islands as, I am afraid, they are in many other countries, and even in the United Kingdom. A recent report published in the Times Educational Supplement stated that almost one adult in five in the UK today is obese. From a committee report in the other place, the obesity figures have tripled over the past 20 years. The National Audit Office has reported that obesity-related diseases are costing the National Health Service half a billion pounds annually, along with 18 million sick days and 30,000 premature deaths a year. This, we should remember, is in the United Kingdom.
In the South Pacific islands, the latest figures from the International Obesity Task Force show that levels of obesity in that region, in particular among women, are the highest in the world. Some 55 per cent of Tongan women and 77 per cent of men and women in Nauru are clinically obese. Understandably, this places a tremendous burden on the health services of those islands.
The report suggests that the problem is heightened by the traditional cultural notion, as in several other countries, that "bigness" is a sign of wealth and power. Yet according to the same report, obesity is actually linked to poverty and low economic status. Perhaps an aid development programme could also include packages for education on health matters, in particular on weight-related illnesses.
Finally, I turn to the political situation. Countries like Fiji, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, and Vanuatu, so movingly described by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, are both popular tourist destinations. They may seem like tourist havens in a tropical paradise, but even in that tropical paradise we have heard of the political instability in the region, especially in 2000, a point emphasised during our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland.
Thankfully, the South Pacific islands are starting to re-emerge as democratic nations after a period of unrest, but there remains a need for the international community to ensure that the Pacific Island states do not become havens from which organised crime or future terrorist attacks can be planned, financed or launched.
As development aid declines and the islands are encouraged to become more economically self sufficient, there is a risk that the island states will become tempted to raise income through new means.

1081
Nauru, for example, is reportedly home to some 450 shell banking companies. The importance of these 14 South Pacific island nations, whose extensive maritime zones span nearly one-third of the globe, cannot be underestimated. This was recently exemplified by Israel's seizure of a gun-running ship sailing under the flag of Tonga.
Yet the present Government appear to show a remarkable lack of interest in the political rebirth that I have described. They have also demonstrated a reluctance to engage in this part of the world. We on this side of the House hope that Her Majesty's Government will look seriously and favourably at development programmes for the South Pacific islands region. I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Glenarthur about the importance of diplomatic representation. This is an area with which we share a rich history. We trust that the Government will continue to work with the islands' respective governments in a constructive manner.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting short debate demonstrating a tremendous wealth of experience, excluding the three noble Lords on the Front Benches who have rather less experience than the two former Ministers who have spoken and whose expertise is well known. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for raising the debate, in particular because, on behalf of the Government, it gives me a chance to put on the record the importance that the Government attach to the South Pacific region.
Noble Lords have outlined the many strong historic links we have with the islands of the South Pacific, and I want to assure the House that we have not forgotten our history. Government-to-government links today continue to be strong and are even expanding into new areas, including one aspect of healthcare referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings; namely, the fight against HIV/AIDS infection. There has been an increase in expenditure in that area.
Particularly important are our links with the Pacific through the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the European Union. I know, of course, from our time in the other place of the tremendous interest that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has in the Commonwealth. We shall continue to use our influence through these institutions and do what we can to help Pacific island states to meet their international obligations—for example, by assisting them with the process of ratifying the UN's international human rights covenants.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has a detailed, first-hand knowledge of the Pacific from heading up, on no less than three occasions, the UK delegation to the annual post-forum dialogue with the Pacific Islands Forum. I pay tribute to him for breaking new ground by attending the first dialogue in 1989. Sending a UK delegation to the dialogue is perhaps the most tangible way that we can continue to show our commitment to the region.
1082
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked me to let him know what our level of representation has been in recent years. We have been represented at ministerial level every year since the dialogue began, except for two occasions. One of those occasions was last year. However, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is hoping to attend this year. We are still awaiting dates from the Fijian Government about precisely when it will take place.
Another very tangible expression of our support is our continued diplomatic presence in the region. We continue to maintain High Commissions in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Tonga, and last month we formally re-opened a High Commission office in Kiribati. This office, which is headed by a resident deputy high commissioner, reports to the High Commission in Fiji. Although we have been back in Kiribati for only a short time, we have already helped the I-Kiribati Government to host a parliamentary workshop on HIV/AIDS and have identified a key member of the I-Kiribati civil service to study in the UK under the Chevening scholarship scheme. We have no plans to change our current level of representation in the region.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, outlined, the Pacific continues to experience a number of serious inter-ethnic conflicts, a point also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. Fighting in Bougainville, which lasted for more than 10 years and claimed hundreds of lives, seems thankfully to be drawing to a close with the agreement last month by the Papua New Guinean Government of the constitutional amendments required to give limited autonomy to the province. But there are many high-powered weapons still circulating there, as there are also in the Solomon Islands. Although there has not been a similar loss of life in Fiji, inter-ethnic tensions continue to simmer there too.

We have been actively engaged on a political level in doing what we can to bring an end to these conflicts. We have supported the UN's pioneering work on weapons disposal in Bougainville, and, with our partners in Australia and New Zealand, worked to ensure that elections were held on schedule in the Solomon Islands last December. As a result, we now have a new government, with a fresh mandate, in that economically desperate country. There is, however, still much to do, and we will continue to keep up the pressure on the Solomon Islands Government to address the law and order situation, end duty remissions and pass a realistic budget.
Following the Commonwealth's lead, we have recently resumed full co-operation with Fiji after a period of strained relations following the coup. We will continue, both bilaterally and with our Commonwealth partners, to monitor the situation, and, in particular, any attempts to distort the constitution in favour of ethnic Fijians and to implement policies which favour ethnic Fijians over Fiji's other peoples.

1083
In addition to these actions on a political level, we have also been engaged in a number of practical projects in the field of conflict prevention. We have contributed to the UN's work on arms disposal on Bougainville and to the international peace monitoring team in the Solomon Islands. We are providing training for the Papua New Guinea defence force.
Another area where we have traditionally had an important role to play is in supporting the judiciary in the Pacific. As your Lordships will know, many of the legal systems in the Pacific were set up by British colonial officials and are rooted in British traditions. One of our most far-reaching projects in the Pacific has been built on our shared heritage in this area. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, this concerns the funding of Justice Roger Coventry, a senior British judge, to work with Vanuatu's supreme court. The attachment of Justice Coventry has been a major success in restoring public confidence in the judiciary. He has helped the court to clear a large backlog of cases and has improved the effectiveness of the courts operations. Noble Lords will agree that a fully functioning supreme court is a significant force for stability, and we have extended this successful project for a third year. We are grateful to the Commonwealth Secretariat for making this extension possible.
Elsewhere in the Pacific, in the Solomon Islands, we have helped to strengthen the country's court of appeal by providing financial support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, who sits as its president, and we have assisted with the running of the high court by funding its registrar for a period of two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked whether the fund using residual—British—Phosphate Commissioner's money is still in existence. It is although it is now called the Pacific Islands Friendship Fund. The attachment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, was funded from this pool of money, as were other projects such as electoral assistance in Fiji and voter education in Papua New Guinea.
These have been some of the main areas where we have helped, but we have also made a significant contribution to the holding of elections in the Solomon Islands and Fiji and are preparing to do the same in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, particularly mentioned the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. As he said, good governance is an extremely important issue, and we have spoken to that foundation on a number of occasions about working with us on projects in the South Pacific. So far our discussions have not led to anything specific, but we are keen to explore possibilities. For example, we may invite its representatives to a series of workshops for parliamentarians which we will shortly be running in the Solomon Islands. So that issue is on-going.
We are looking at other areas, too, such as the environment and global warming, and we are working to tackle economic crime and money laundering. We will continue to provide funding for some of the
1084
Pacific's young people to study in the UK under the Chevening scholarship scheme and to fund sponsored visits.
Let me now turn more specifically to Britain's development relationship with Pacific island countries. We continue greatly to value this relationship, but of course, as a number of noble Lords have said, it has not stayed the same over the years. There have been many changes within these countries and within Britain's own development strategy, which has evolved considerably since 1997. It now centres on the Government's commitment to the attainment of internationally agreed targets for poverty elimination. In order to achieve these targets, the Government take a global view of development issues, in which it is important to collaborate with others to help build a more effective international development system. In particular, we concentrate our assistance where there are large numbers of poor people and where we have special expertise.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned the level of expenditure per head. In areas of south-east Asia and elsewhere where there are huge populations—I have not had time to do the calculation——he will find that the expenditure per head is considerably lower. It goes without saying that we all want to spend more, but we should bear that point in mind.
With these considerations in mind, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development decided in early 2001 that we should not continue with separate British bilateral projects in the Pacific after March 2004. This means that we shall maintain our interest in the region by refocusing our contributions to multilateral institutions. We shall also continue with our assessed contribution to the Pacific community and honour our commitment to the Tuvalu Trust Fund. We also stand ready to respond to any humanitarian crisis that may arise. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, mentioned the earthquake in Port Vila. Immediately following the earthquake, the department agreed to fund scientific and engineering assessments by the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission. In addition, we hope to support proposals from the EU to assist with rehabilitation work, which may include the points that he raised.
DfID's contributions to such institutions as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank already average some £8 million a year—double what we spend on our bilateral programmes—and our multilateral contributions will rise as the Pacific benefits from increased funding available under the Cotonou agreement.
To be more specific about our aid through the multilateral agencies—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle—as I said, we are spending £8 million a year. As multilateral funding increases, particularly under the Cotonou agreement, which is a good example, so will our proportionate share. Our share will increase as a proportion of the total that

1085
comes through multilateral funding. I must say frankly to the noble Lord that it is difficult to be absolutely precise about the figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Decisions on the future of individual investments are a matter entirely for the CDC. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that the purpose of the public/private partnership is to mobilise increased investment in developing countries, including in the Pacific.
What then are the Government's current priorities in the Pacific? The region does not suffer from the acute levels of income poverty found elsewhere in the world, but Pacific island communities none the less experience plenty of poverty and exclusion. As elsewhere in the world, we wish to help build democratic, accountable government. Accordingly, education and governance are priorities for Df1D assistance and attention is focused on the poorest islands—particularly on Vanuatu, of which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, spoke so movingly and effectively, Kiribati and the Solomon Islands—and on strengthening regional organisations.
Let me reassure the House that we are committed to completing existing activities and to fulfilling our pledges of new assistance. For example, for some years we have supported a curriculum development project for primary education in the Solomon Islands. This has just been extended for one year, to December 2003, to ensure its completion. Emergency assistance to maintain primary education in the Solomons, which we agreed last year but which has been slow to disburse, will also continue beyond its original implementation period.
We shall fulfil our commitment to assist Vanuatu with basic education. But, rather than proceeding entirely bilaterally, we are now planning to collaborate with UNESCO, thereby strengthening Vanuatu's links with a multilateral organisation. Our assistance will consist of technical assistance and grant funding to support Vanuatu's Education for All Forum in developing a realistic policy and implementation plan for education, both formal and informal. I can give further assurance that the small grants schemes around £300,000 per year—will continue. They are administered by high commissioners.
The UK actively supports the Secretariat of the Pacific community. Recent representation at its meetings has been by our ambassador in Suva and by DfID officials. We contribute to the Secretariat's core budget and support selected programmes. At present, DfID is considering collaborating with the Secretariat and any other interested donors in establishing a much-needed socio-economic regional database. This
1086
will be available to national and regional policy makers and planners, to the private sector, to civil society and to donors. It will help them to monitor the impact of programmes and population trends and assist them in formulating new policies more precisely.
DfID is also discussing with the European Commission the possibility of seconding a trade adviser to its delegation office in Suva, whose services would be particularly relevant to implementing the trade provisions of the Cotonou agreement. There is also the prospect of staff secondments or exchanges with the World Bank and the New Zealand ODA in the field of education.
These are just a number of examples by which I hope to assure your Lordships that we shall continue the commitments that we already have, and that we take very seriously the multilateral programmes that are now coming to the fore. I hope that these few examples demonstrate to the House that the British Government are working actively to help the small island economies of the Pacific. They may be far away, but we stay in close touch with events there and will continue to play our part, both bilaterally and in international fora, to ensure that they are better able to meet the challenges of global change and make the most of the opportunities that it brings.
All those who have taken part in the debate have spoken effectively about the warmth of the contacts between ourselves and these small, scattered islands with such diverse histories and communities.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Minister has not touched on one important point. I hope that he will do so before drawing his remarks to an end. I specifically asked about Pitcairn island. Pitcairn is our one dependency in the region. Only 50 or so people live there and make their living there. Nevertheless, it is important. I hope that the Minister will kindly refer to Pitcairn and answer my question.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I shall write to him on that point. He can rapidly be assured of that.
I hope that I have been able to assure the House of our commitment to this region. If I have not done so to the absolute satisfaction of everyone, I am sure that there are enough experts in the House on these subjects to ensure that we return to them if we need to do so.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Republic of Ireland: British Passport Applications
  Republic of Ireland: British Passport Applications
  London Underground: Timing of 7 February Statement
  London Underground: Timing of 7 February Statement
  Afghanistan: Ethnic Communities' Representation
  Afghanistan: Ethnic Communities' Representation
  World Trade Centre Attack: Fatalities
  World Trade Centre Attack: Fatalities
  Youth Justice Orders: Ethnic Monitoring
  Youth Justice Orders: Ethnic Monitoring
  Defence Medicine: Employment of Civilian Medical Consultants
  Defence Medicine: Employment of Civilian Medical Consultants
  Army Units Not Conforming to 24-month Tour Interval
  Army Units Not Conforming to 24-month Tour Interval
  Private Military Companies
  Private Military Companies
  Milne Task Force Report
  Milne Task Force Report
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Meat Importing Companies: Controls
  Meat Importing Companies: Controls
  Landfill Sites: Health Outcomes
  Landfill Sites: Health Outcomes
  National Health Service: Litigation
  National Health Service: Litigation
  Genetics: Progress on Publication of Green Paper
  Genetics: Progress on Publication of Green Paper
  National Health Service: Standards for Information Systems
  National Health Service: Standards for Information Systems
  Testing: Genetic Proposed National Network
  Testing: Genetic Proposed National Network
  Anticoagulation Treatment: Disposable Testing Strips
  Anticoagulation Treatment: Disposable Testing Strips
  National Curriculum: European Integration
  National Curriculum: European Integration
  State Pension
  State Pension
  European Union Signatures Directive
  European Union Signatures Directive
  EC Regulation 2037/2000: Implementation
  EC Regulation 2037/2000: Implementation