Sitting of 13 February 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (DISSOLUTION)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the draft Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of a draft laid before your House on 8 January.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 27 February.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 2000–01
Ordered,
That there be laid before the House accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2000–01, showing:—

(1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 2001; and

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

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Police Reform
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on police reform in Northern Ireland. [33133]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Our aim is to develop a modern police service that is effective and widely accepted throughout the community that it serves. Good progress has already been
    190
    made in restructuring the police and in establishing a Policing Board with representatives from across the community.
    Mr. Murphy: I welcome that answer, as I do the long overdue police reform in Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend agree that the families affected by the Omagh atrocity are not helped by the fact that people of considerable influence, including some politicians, refuse to assist the police in their inquiries into the Omagh events? Does she also agree that, despite the important work carried out by the Policing Board, the undignified public squabble between the police ombudsman and other authorities only adds a sense of frustration to that of loss and anger, which is already felt by the bereaved families?
    Jane Kennedy: Everyone wants the perpetrators to be brought to justice. To convict those responsible for that appalling crime, the police need evidence. Speculation and intelligence are not enough. This remains a live investigation, and I hope that the recent publicity about the tragic events in Omagh on 15 August 1998 will encourage those with information to come forward.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: If the Minister is keen to have a good police service in Northern Ireland, does she agree that it needs to be properly funded? There is a deficit of more than £40 million for this year, and it will probably be £80 million next year. Without resources, how can we have good policing in Northern Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources that it needs to continue to deliver a high-quality policing service to all in the community. The police grant for this year amounts to £656 million, which represents a high level of commitment by the Government. In August, the Secretary of State allocated an additional £10 million to the police grant to relieve pressures arising from the costs of policing disturbances earlier in the year. I am pleased to announce today that a further £16 million has been made available to the PSNI to meet all the remaining pressures identified by the Chief Constable in this financial year.
    Mr. John Hume: Does the Minister agree that the most fundamental and necessary principle of law and order in any society is agreement on the system of government—in other words, agreement on the system of order? When that is absent, no matter where it is, the police service will always be seen to be on one side or the other. Unfortunately, that was the situation in Northern Ireland.
    Now, that fundamental principle has not only been put in place, with agreement on our system of government, but overwhelmingly endorsed by the people. That being so, does the Minister agree that it is the duty of members of all democratic political parties who regard themselves as democrats fully to support the policing service and to take their place in all the bodies relating to it?
    Jane Kennedy: I entirely agree with everything my hon. Friend says.
    Lady Hermon: Will the Minister please address a serious issue? The Patten report recommends

    191
    that, over 10 years, the strength of the police service should be 7,500. That represents a significant fall in a short time. What is being done to redress the balance as regards that dangerously low level of policing?
    Jane Kennedy: The Police Service of Northern Ireland is recruiting well, and levels of recruitment from both sides of the community are at a higher level than even Patten envisaged in his report. I am encouraged by the response that the communities have given to the reforms in the police service in Northern Ireland, and I have every confidence that we will have all the officers that we need to police Northern Ireland in the future.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I have here a letter from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It states:
    "Dear Colleague,
    Northern Ireland Questions: Wednesday 13th February 2002.
    Thank you for your interest in Northern Ireland, and your help in tabling questions. I attach a suggested question…If you would like an alternative, or would like the question tabled on your behalf, please contact either myself, or Shona McIsaac, PPS to Jane Kennedy MP, Minister of State for Security and Policing…If your question is listed and is likely to be called, there will be assistance available with supplementaries".
    Does the Minister agree that it is a pretty good waste of Parliament's time for her and her colleagues to answer questions cooked up in her office?
    Further to the question of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), will the Minister accept that she told us on Monday that the number of victims of paramilitary violence was now 50 per cent. higher than when Patten wrote his report, and that the staffing level of the police service is now 300 below the level envisaged by Patten? Does she agree that this would be the wrong time to start disbanding the full-time police reserve?
    Jane Kennedy: In one short question I have been asked about police staffing, police resources and the very difficult matter of Omagh. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest which of those issues we should not be questioned on?

    Good Friday Agreement
    Roger Casale: What aspects of the Good Friday agreement remain to be implemented. [33134]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): All aspects of the Belfast agreement have now been started. Our task is to ensure that the implementation process continues on all fronts.
    Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Now that the new institutions are operational, will he continue to do everything that he can to encourage all parties, including the Unionists, to work together in those institutions? Will he also continue to support the economic development of Northern Ireland, which is one
    192
    of the ways of bringing people—especially young people—together and ensuring that all the people of Northern Ireland have a better future?
    Mr. Browne: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are faithfully implementing the agreement. As he rightly points out, implementation is not a matter only for the Government; it is a joint enterprise. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for the significant work that they are doing in this regard. The Government have consistently encouraged and persuaded others to fulfil their obligations, and we are still doing so. We continue to face challenges, but we also continue to make steady progress on all aspects of the agreement.
    Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware of the existence of the recently formed Ulster Political Research Group, whose aim is to address the political alienation from the Good Friday agreement process felt by loyalist communities in Northern Ireland, particularly in north Belfast? Would he be willing to accept representations from that group, and from one of its leading contributors, Mr. Frankie Gallagher?
    Mr. Browne: The Government recognise the potential contribution that the Ulster Political Research Group could make to progress in this regard. That is why officials from the Northern Ireland Office met a delegation from the group on 28 January. There was a constructive exchange of views, and it was agreed that further meetings could take place when appropriate.
    Mr. David Trimble: While welcoming what the Minister has just said about engaging with loyalism, may I ask the Government to consider their own position? When are they going to demonstrate that they fully respect the letter and the spirit of the agreement's constitutional provisions, particularly those that recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's place as part of the United Kingdom? When are the Government going to respect that? They completely failed to do so in certain aspects of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Are they going to repeat that mistake with regard to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, or will they allow the proper expression of British national symbols in the courts of Northern Ireland on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom? That is the logic and the spirit of the agreement, but the Government have not yet recognised that.
    Mr. Browne: I have already assured the House that the Government are implementing the agreement faithfully, including aspects mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. As for his specific point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the Government's position clear on Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, and in Committee yesterday I had an opportunity to repeat what he had said. We are prepared to consider all aspects of that Bill, and the Secretary of State is considering the points made to him by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Minister not think that far too much attention is already being paid to symbolism, not just in Northern Ireland but in Britain

    193
    more generally? Would it not be appropriate to think about reducing the importance that we attach to symbols, and attaching more importance to reality?
    Mr. Browne: That is of course an important aspect of the agreement, in that the agreement requires the symbols and traditions of both sides of the community to be acknowledged and respected. The Government will continue to implement that provision.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The whole House will have noticed that the Minister of State spectacularly failed to answer an important question about the Government's commitment to running down the full-time police reserve in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the whole population of Northern Ireland will draw very pessimistic conclusions from that evasion.
    I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues sincerely share my disappointment that there has been no further act of decommissioning since the Sinn Fein-IRA single act of decommissioning last October. Is the Under-Secretary of State surprised?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows the position relating to the full-time reserve: the Chief Constable will review the situation in April, and the Government will act on his recommendations.
    We want more decommissioning, as, I think, do all Members. We maintain, and must maintain, local, national and international pressure on all terrorist groups in order to make further progress. This is not just a republican issue, however. We must not lose sight of the need to encourage movement from loyalists: indeed, to some extent that must be our priority.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not time the Government learned that giving rewards and concessions to people who do not fulfil their obligations is not a very clever way of inducing them to do so? Will the Minister assure us that, short of the completion of decommissioning and the abandonment of the armed struggle by terrorists and former terrorists, there can be no question of an amnesty for terrorists on the run? If the Government proceeded with such an amnesty in the present circumstances, they would have no defence whatever against the charge of a complete sell-out—a sell-out of all the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland, in both communities, and indeed of all principles of judicial propriety and good sense.
    Mr. Browne: The Weston Park proposals set the issue in its proper context. It arises from the Belfast agreement, and is a logical extension of it. As we have said repeatedly, the Government are still considering how this might be achieved, and when our considerations have been concluded we will publish our proposals for debate here.

    Military Presence
    Laura Moffatt: What progress is being made towards reducing the military presence in Northern Ireland. [33135]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): As a result of the general lowering of the threat from terrorists, the Chief Constable was able to announce on 22 January a number of further normalisation measures.
    Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the attack on the Magilligan training camp, and extend his sympathy to the civilian victim's family? Will he assure the House and everyone else that that terrible act will not impede the process of normalisation in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: I have no hesitation in condemning the recent attack on the Magilligan training centre. I am sure that I speak for all Members in extending sympathy to the victim and the victim's family.
    Clearly, there are those who still wish to inject the poison of the past into Northern Ireland society in an attempt to stop the progress towards the normal, stable, decent, democratic Northern Ireland that the people there deserve. They will not be allowed to achieve that objective; but it is worth making absolutely plain that the abnormal level of troops in Northern Ireland is not a result of any aspiration or ambition on the part of the Government or the House, but a direct result of the abnormal threat to the lives and property of Northern Ireland citizens, and to the police. Of the people who demand the reduction in troop levels the loudest are those who, by their vicious actions, ensure that those levels remain above the normal level for the rest of the United Kingdom.
    David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way in which to reduce the regular Army to garrison levels, which all reasonable people want in Northern Ireland, is to maintain a civil police force of such numbers, size and operational ability that it can be the prime force in defending law and order? In two areas of Northern Ireland, north Belfast and Coleraine, the regular Army has been brought in recently to back up the RUC, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister come to a meeting that I have called for next Wednesday night at Ballyclare town hall to hear the complaints and concerns of the full-time RUC Reserve? Forty per cent. of the operational police on the ground have an "R" on their shoulder. If they are taken out in March or April, we will have no law and order in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Reid: Of course, the Minister responsible for security and I meet constantly with members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including members of the full-time reserve. I would not for a moment underestimate the difficulties in facing up to the challenges that the police service faces.
    Decisions on the full-time reserve will depend on an assessment by the Chief Constable, which will be made in April this year. However, I caution the hon. Gentleman against even implicitly I know that he does not mean to do this—laying the blame for the high level of troops in Northern Ireland on any inadequacy in the policing. The level of troops in Northern Ireland is a direct result of the threats to the lives and to the property of the police and the citizenry in Northern Ireland by dissident republicans

    195
    in particular, but also by rejectionist loyalists. They are the people who are refusing to mend their ways and creating an abnormal society in Northern Ireland. We are the people who wish to see normality return.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the primacy of policing and policing decisions is a hallmark and a core element of any normal and stable society? Does he further agree that until there is a reduction in the military presence the primacy of policing decisions will be incomplete? What plans does the Northern Ireland Office have of now to ensure the removal of installations in south Armagh that are manned exclusively by military personnel?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is our aspiration to achieve a normal level of troops in Northern Ireland. Indeed, partly because of the success of the police service, in co-operation with the Garda from the Republic of Ireland, the threat level has been assessed as lower and, in the past four months alone, from memory, we have reduced two establishments, and announced that another barracks is to close and a battalion and three towers are to be removed.
    I repeat that we have no ambition to keep a higher level of troops in Northern Ireland than is absolutely necessary, particularly when British troops, because of their professional expertise, are in demand across the world by the United Nations. However, the main obstacle to that is the fact that there remains a higher than normal threat to the lives of our citizens and to the police service. It is the first duty of any civilised Government to defend the lives of our citizens and to combat the threats against them.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Given that the Ministry of Defence's liability so far for its part in the Saville inquiry is £14.5 million, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that that will in no way compromise any part of the MOD's operational budget in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I can. Our military expenditure in Northern Ireland in the past 30 years has been astronomical. As a result of the progress that we have made in the peace process, part of which addresses very difficult issues of truth about the past, the troop level in Northern Ireland is lower than it has been for 31 years. We have reduced the number of soldiers there from 27,000 to 13,000, with commensurate back-up. The savings from that alone far exceed any costs of the Bloody Sunday inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Police Effectiveness
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What discussions he has had with authorities in (a) the United States and (b) other countries to identify means of improving police effectiveness in Northern Ireland. [33136]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I have ongoing contact with a range of authorities on policing matters. I returned this morning from a two-day visit to the United States, which gave me an opportunity to discuss policing and other matters with
    196
    Secretary Powell, Robert Mueller, who is director of the FBI, and assistant Attorney-General Larry Thompson, among others.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an indivisibility about terrorism, and that the assistance provided by the United States will therefore be particularly welcome to the people of Northern Ireland? In so far as there are resource implications of that assistance, will the needs of the Police Service of Northern Ireland be met adequately and in full?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. I have no hesitation in saying publicly that we are enormously grateful for the assistance that we have been given by the United States authorities and, most recently, President Bush's agreement to joint training between the FBI and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend points out, the Government are committed to providing the resources necessary to supplement assistance from outside. That is why we recently awarded an additional £10 million. As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for security said today, we are happy to announce that an additional £16 million will go to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: I welcome the announcement today in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) of additional money for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Can I press the Secretary of State further to reassure my constituents in north Belfast and other people in Northern Ireland that the axe that currently hangs over several police stations, including two in my constituency that cover areas where there has been trouble in recent days—in the Whitewell area and between Tiger's Bay and Newington—will be removed? Will the Secretary of State ensure that those police stations will remain open and that security will not be reduced at a very difficult time?
    Dr. Reid: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of the Government's commitment to resource the police service. I do not often have the opportunity to welcome such acknowledgements but I am grateful for it. On decisions about the future of police stations in general, the key role will be played by the Policing Board. Despite the cynicism and attempts by people to undermine the role of the Policing Board, it has risen magnificently to continual challenges, not least most recently on the subject of the Omagh inquiry. I am sure that it will act with just as much wisdom, circumspection and concern for effective policing on the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

    Devolved Administration (Discussions)
    Siobhain McDonagh: What recent discussions he has had with the devolved Administration regarding the support given to victims of the troubles. [33137]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I met Ministers of the devolved Administration on 25 January. We discussed a range of issues that impact on our

    197
    respective strategies for responding to the needs of victims of the troubles. Such regular consultation is vital to ensure that the needs of victims are properly addressed.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I draw his attention to the very good work of the Northern Ireland centre for trauma and transformation. What assurances can he give about its future funding?
    Mr. Browne: I can assure my hon. Friend that the centre's work has been fully recognised by the Northern Ireland Office. Significant funding has been committed so that it can go ahead as the Northern Ireland centre for trauma. The centre is doing good work in Northern Ireland, and internationally.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome what has been done for victims, but does the Minister accept that we have fresh victims daily, who sometimes seem to be forgotten about? Will it be possible for the Minister to use his influence more to prevent the constant changes in our policing that keep people writing reports instead of working on the streets?
    Mr. Browne: I recognise the need for less bureaucracy in this matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are about to take a fresh look at our strategy with regard to victims to ensure that it is capable of responding to the changing context that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of hon. Members on all sides of the House how deeply we express our sadness at the death of her royal highness Princess Margaret? She will be remembered by the whole nation with huge affection for her love of culture and art and her sense of fun, but most of all for the service that she gave our nation. Our thoughts and deep condolences are with the Queen, the Queen Mother, and all the royal family.
    This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also had a meeting with some 600 chief executives in the national health service. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today
    Dr. Naysmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that matters such as MMR and BSE illustrate how important it is to understand the risk factor in science? Does he also agree that science and discovery centres such as At-Bristol play an important role in achieving that? Will
    198
    he therefore accept that such centres deserve to have central Government funding, as many museums and art galleries do?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the centre in Bristol on the work that it does, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we invest in science for the future. That is why the Government, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, are committed to making available some £1 billion over the next few years for investment in science. That will be an investment not only in the learning of our young people, but in the economic future of the country.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in offering our condolences to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen Mother and the royal family on their sad loss. The Prime Minister is right to say that Princess Margaret was a strong servant of her country, through war and peace. She will be mourned and much missed throughout the country.
    When the Prime Minister signed the letter to his Romanian counterpart on behalf of LNM on 23 July 2001, was he or his chief of staff—[Interruption.] I repeat, was he or his chief of staff aware that the owner of that company, Mr. Mittal, had at any time—I repeat, at any time—donated money to his party?
    The Prime Minister: It is of course a matter of public record that Mr. Mittal is a donor to the Labour party and a supporter of the Labour party. Why is that a matter of public record? It is because this Government introduced the open rules for political funding. For years and years, no one had any idea of how the Conservative party or any political party was funded. We introduced rules of transparency.
    As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the letter that I signed mentioned not Mr. Mittal but his company, LNM, of which I had no knowledge. However, having said that, had I known that Mr. Mittal was a supporter of the Labour party, it would have made no difference whatever to the signing of the letter. That was entirely justified, as was the advice from the embassy.
    This is a complete load of nonsense from beginning to end. It is not Watergate, it is Garbagegate. It is the biggest load of garbage since the last load of garbage, which was Enron.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is very interesting that the Prime Minister now says that it is garbage to raise a concern that he, as the Prime Minister and on behalf of the whole country, should have written a letter in support of a company—by the way, it is a competitor to our main steel manufacturer—which turns out to have fewer than one tenth of 1 per cent. of its employees working in the United Kingdom. The company is registered in the Dutch Antilles. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether at any stage he or his chief of staff were aware, as he signed the letter, that it was in support of someone who had donated money to the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that it was a matter of public record that Mr. Mittal was a donor to the Labour party. However, what the right hon. Gentleman

    199
    says about the letter is total nonsense. It was written at the instigation of the British embassy in Romania. It was written for the very simple reason that this was a reform, namely the selling off of an old state industry, which we supported strongly. I am delighted that a British-based company has succeeded. What is more, I am pleased that the embassy asked us to do this—it was the right thing to do. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously saying that because the company is owned by someone who is a supporter of the Labour party, we should not write such a letter, even though the British embassy requests it, that is totally contrary to the practice of previous Governments throughout the ages.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister already knows that, apparently, in the draft letter the word "friend" was struck out before he even signed it. The real point is not whether the Prime Minister was right to sign on behalf of the company but how many of the companies that employ fewer than 100 employees in this country and are registered abroad he backs by letters to foreign countries in support of contracts? The Prime Minister seems to have missed the point. Until he is able to say that he knew specifically about the matter and discussed it with his chief of staff and then decided, despite that, to go ahead, we will never be the clearer and will always be left doubting whether the Prime Minister acted in the best interests of Britain. To clear this up, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he will agree to a full public and independent inquiry into this affair?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly tell the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that—it is no. As I pointed out a moment ago, I signed the letter unchanged, and it made no mention of Mr. Mittal. However, had it done so, it would still have been entirely the right thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was wrong to sign the letter. I will explain again to Conservative Members why I did so.
    The embassy in Romania asked us to sign the letter because it was an important contract. We fully supported the Romanian Government's policy of economic reform. We therefore wanted to celebrate the fact that the contract had been awarded to a British company and the fact that the Romanian Government's programme of economic reform was right for Romania. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the comments of the Romanian Prime Minister today, plainly puzzled at the nonsense being raised by Conservative Members, he will see that the decision to award the contract was made before the letter was even written. Therefore, all we were doing was welcoming the fact that this process of economic reform was going forward.
    The reason the right hon. Gentleman is raising this is simple—no one would know of any donations but for the legislation that we introduced—it is because the Conservative party got into such difficulty in the previous Parliament, because previous leading members of the Conservative party are either in jail or have just come out of jail—[Interruption.] What Conservative Members want to do, because of the trouble they got into, is smear us with the same brush. I am afraid that all they do when they engage in this nonsense is remind people of their own record.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Derek Twigg: My constituency has some of the highest mortality rates in the country for certain cancers. What concerns my constituents are the inequalities in health service provision. Historically, we have had a shortage of health professionals for a number of years. What are the Government doing to ensure that we have more professionals, such as doctors and nurses, in the health service so that health inequalities in areas such as mine are dealt with?
    The Prime Minister: The most important thing that we can do to recruit more professionals into the health service is obviously to put in the extra investment. That is why we are recruiting more doctors, more nurses and more consultants. We are recruiting at every level of the health service for a very simple reason: we believe that one of the principal problems of the health service is undercapacity in it. We need those doctors and nurses. In the past year alone, we have recruited more than 15,000 more nurses. As a result of that, we will meet the NHS planned target on recruitment of nurses some two years ahead of schedule. That will only succeed if we keep that investment going through the health service and do not take it out—which is of course the policy of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I fully associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes paid to the late Princess Margaret. Our condolences go to the other members of the royal family.
    May I invite the Prime Minister to take the opportunity this afternoon to welcome the decision—the policy initiative—taken this week in the Welsh Assembly by his party and by the Liberal Democrats to reintroduce grants for poorer Welsh students?
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to congratulate the Welsh Assembly on its decision. Obviously, we are looking at how we can improve access for students in our country. It is worth pointing out that, under the proposals introduced by the Government, 50 per cent. of students do not—I think—pay tuition fees.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister's welcome is itself welcome. Given that his party and our own party have legislated both in Scotland and in Wales for a fairer deal for our students and potential students, is not the logic of that position that we should legislate at Westminster as well? The right hon. Gentleman would have the support of two thirds or four fifths of his Back Benchers. Why does not he do it?
    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the Scottish system, that is different altogether from grants for poorer students. In fact, in this country, we already have bursaries for some of the poorer students and, yes, we are looking at how we can give poorer students greater opportunities to apply for those bursaries. That is important.

    201
    In respect of Scotland, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Scotland is entitled to go its own way on this—that is part of the devolution settlement. The right hon. Gentleman should point out to people that in fact students in Scotland pay as a result of the Scottish system. We are looking at how we can achieve a fairer balance between the contribution the state makes and the contribution students make; but if we are to get our higher education participation rates above 50 per cent. there is no way that we can do that under the old system. That was why, under the previous Government, Sir Ronald Dearing—now Lord Dearing—held an inquiry into how we could change the system. In today's world, there is no way that we shall be able to get more and more students in and still get resources to the front line of universities unless we change the system of student finance. That is why we have introduced the reforms that we are making. We are looking particularly at how we can help poorer students, but there is no way out of that difficult choice on the balance between state funding and student contribution.
    Llew Smith: Does the Prime Minister support the sentiments expressed in the Green Paper published by the Foreign Office yesterday, which suggest that we should employ mercenaries—who often work for the most odious regimes and whose only loyalty is to money—to support the United Nations in a crisis, because among other things, they are cheaper than our own national armed forces?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, our own armed forces do fantastic work peacekeeping throughout the world. I think that the Foreign Secretary was saying that the use of mercenaries has to come within some proper system of regulation. Until now, that has not been the case and that is why it is important that we ensure that there are proper rules on the use of mercenaries.
    Chris Grayling: I have given the Prime Minister prior notice of this question. Last week at Prime Minister's Question Time, I challenged the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to the House about Railtrack on 19 December, when he said:
    "However, the longer the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 288-9.]
    Since last week, the administrator has again given evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions at which he contradicted that statement by the Prime Minister. I have sent the right hon. Gentleman a transcript of that evidence. Will he today accept that his statement was not correct and will he withdraw it?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am afraid I will not—on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman sent me. Obviously, we shall have to wait for the administrator to give a full account of the exact assets and liabilities of Railtrack, at a later date. However, one thing is clear: the reason that the company had to be put into administration was that it was effectively not a going concern—it was totally dependent on
    202
    Government subsidy. When the administrator makes his final tally and accounts, I think that the hon. Gentleman will see that I am right and that he is wrong.
    Helen Jones: The Prime Minister may be aware that the new accident and emergency unit to be built at Warrington hospital is a pilot project in which staff expertise will be used to design better emergency care for patients. Will he join me in congratulating the staff at Warrington on the work that they have put into the project and in recognising their skill? Will he assure me and the House that any NHS reforms will draw on the expertise of those who understand it best—the staff?
    The Prime Minister: That is part of a programme of renovation of all the accident and emergency departments that are needed in the country. They are under tremendous pressure—of course they are—and the staff do a fantastic job in difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend's example is one among many of how changes in working practices, extra staff and extra investment in capital and equipment are making a real difference.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The Prime Minister will be aware that, 10 days ago, the city of Hereford was effectively cut in two when the River Wye flooded for the third time in four years. Businesses were affected, homes were flooded and the city was gridlocked. Although a flood alleviation scheme is in place, there are real concerns that it might be delayed because of statutory consultation and the discovery of archaeological remains. Will he assure the people of the city of Hereford that if there is a delay, any increased costs will be met by Government funds and not by the flood defence committee?
    The Prime Minister: May I express my sympathy for those affected by the floods in the hon. Gentleman's constituency? I think that the Environment Agency is considering a scheme to deal with that problem. It has to be subject to a certain amount of consultation, but we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the process is as swift as possible and I am happy to correspond with him on how it will be taken forward.
    Caroline Flint: For more than 20 years, employees who contracted lung cancer through exposure to asbestos have been compensated. However, a recent Court of Appeal judgment threatens thousands of current and future claimants who cannot identify the fibre or fibres that first caused the cancer. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter urgently and ensure that the Government do whatever they can to overturn that cruel injustice?
    The Prime Minister: The judgment has been widely perceived as an injustice and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will announce today that we shall pay compensation to the relevant people who meet the qualifying criteria, which could mean payments of more than £30,000. We are

    203
    aware of the problem and we are doing our very best to deal with it, but, obviously, we must study the judgment's consequences carefully.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether street crime in this country has gone up or down since he was re-elected?
    The Prime Minister: According to the British crime survey, overall levels of crime are down, as is violent crime. However, it is correct to say that street crime has risen significantly in the past year, which is why we are taking a series of measures to deal with it.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I suggest that the Prime Minister heed his own advice. When he was shadow Home Secretary, he said that
    "the country is not looking for complacent statements about the situation getting better when it is getting worse".—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 550.]
    Home Office figures leaked last weekend show that street crime nationwide has not just risen, but risen by more than a quarter since the election. Perhaps the Prime Minister can also tell us whether muggings and street crime in London have risen or fallen since the election.
    The Prime Minister: I have just pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that street crime has risen, particularly in the past year. I said that we are taking a series of actions necessary to deal with that. Let me explain them. First, we are recruiting more police officers. Indeed, in London, in just the past few months, there are more than 600 extra officers and, since this time last year, more than 1,000 extra officers. Last year, there were more than 2,500 extra recruits, and I am pleased to tell the House that, this January, recruitment was up 20 per cent. on last year.
    There are also reforms in the new Police Reform Bill that will allow new powers for civilian staff, so that we can free up more officers on the beat. There is also record investment in closed circuit television—some £200 million. We are also funding some 400 extra secure accommodation places and 2,500 more prison places. [Interruption.] Hon. Members ask why street crime is going up. One of the main reasons is to do with the theft of mobile phones, which accounts for about one third of the rise in street robbery. As a result of the measures that we are taking, however, we will be able to get that down. But, of course, that will only happen if we invest in extra police, CCTV and secure accommodation places, rather than take it out, which is the Conservative party's position.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That was a very long answer, but not the answer to the question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him whether, in London, muggings and street crime—two separate categories of crime—had gone up or down. The answer is that street crime in London has gone up by nearly 40 per cent. and muggings have gone up by one third since he was re-elected. That means that people in London have suffered something like 183 street crimes a day, every day since he was re-elected. The Prime Minister has just said, "It's all right; we are getting more police," but his own Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen
    204
    (Mr. Denham), has now confirmed that Metropolitan police figures show that they were short by 1,200 officers last year. No wonder the chairman of the Police Federation has said:
    "Morale has reached an all-time low."
    The reality of the Prime Minister's tenure is simply that in London, people are now twice as likely to be mugged walking the streets as they would be in New York. Does he not think that that is a record of failure by any measure?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is correct that street crime and mugging have gone up in London in the past year, which is precisely why we are taking the action that we are taking. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the number of police in place in the past year, but, as I say, in London alone, more than 1,000 extra police have been recruited. Indeed, as a result of the additional investment, I think that, by the end of the year, we will have record numbers of police—more than in all the years of Conservative Government. It is correct, of course, that one of the answers is to get more police on the beat, more investment in secure accommodation and swifter court action. That is exactly what we are doing, but the key to doing all of it is to put in the extra investment. [Interruption.] The Conservatives go on about five years, but, overall, the crime rate doubled under the 18 years of Conservative Government, while in the five years of this Government it has fallen, not risen. Vehicle crime is down by 30 per cent; burglary is down by more than 20 per cent. Overall, crime is down by 12 per cent. So if we compare the records of Conservative and Labour Governments, we see that, under the Tories, crime doubled; under us, it has fallen.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    John McDonnell: The Prime Minister will have heard the announcement this morning by British Airways, based in my constituency, of 6,000 job losses on top of the 7,000 job losses announced before Christmas. The aviation industry is recovering slowly from the events of 11 September and is grateful to the Government for the assistance that they have provided, but would he be willing to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament from the west London airport constituencies to consider not only the short-term measures that can help those people who are losing their jobs, but the long-term measures that will help us to tackle the structural problems in our local economy?
    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the concern that there must be about the job losses announced by British Airways, and our sympathies are with the constituents in my hon. Friend's constituency and the other constituencies that will be primarily affected by those losses. I know that this announcement has been the product of detailed consultation, however. The company has to engage in restructuring, and it has been closely involved with the unions on how that is to be carried out.

    205
    I would, however, certainly be very pleased to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament from the area affected.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the Prime Minister agree that the anticipated massive increases in council tax in authorities throughout the country will particularly hurt pensioners and those on low incomes? Will he consider that the Government should give urgent consideration to looking at the underfunding of basic services such as social services? Will he further look at the basis of local taxation, so that it relates better to ability to pay?
    The Prime Minister: I understand why the Liberal Democrats are always keen to widen the tax base, but it may not be the case that everyone wishes to do so. I put it to the hon. Lady, however, that the amount of money that we are giving to local government has significantly increased. Let us wait and see what the actual council tax rises are.
    The hon. Lady spoke of the position of pensioners. Of course we are concerned if any pensioners face unacceptable rises in their council tax, but I would point out to her that the Government have done a lot for the income of pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you going to do about it?"] Let me explain what we have already done. We have made large increases to the basic state pension, introduced the £200 winter allowance, as well as free television licences for the over-75s and the minimum income guarantee. In fact, we have put billions of pounds of extra money into helping pensioners. Of course we will watch carefully what happens in relation to council tax, but I hope that the hon. Lady would accept that we have done our level best to try to raise the income of pensioners.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When he will next visit Northern Ireland? I should say that it is a closed question.
    The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me.
    I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Barnes: Tomorrow there is to be an important debate in Westminster Hall about those forced into exile from Northern Ireland by paramilitary intimidation. As representatives of Sinn Fein are now allowed into Westminster, they could at least listen to that debate; and would it not be a good idea if, afterwards, they were to have discussions with those of us who attend that debate to consider the ways and means by which paramilitary organisations will end intimidation? After all, I believe that that was the reason why many of us wanted those representatives here.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that he is right. I hope that representatives of Sinn
    206
    Fein listen to the debate and I hope that they are prepared to take part in discussions. Indeed, I hope that all those political parties that have been connected with paramilitary organisations are prepared to take part, because this is not simply something that is about republicans; it also applies to loyalists.
    If we are genuinely concerned, as we should be, about putting the past to rest in Northern Ireland, one major part of that is people who were intimidated out of the country—the so-called exiles. Of course they should be allowed to return in peace. That, I think, would be a proper part of any significant undertaking in relation to the peace process. If the parties really support the peace process, they should support every dimension of it.
    Mr. Michael Mates: It is very good to hear the Prime Minister going that far, but will he go a little further? Is it not rather shameful that the Government should be considering introducing legislation to give amnesty to criminals who are outside this country, and to prisoners who escaped, allowing them to return? Distasteful as that may be, it may be necessary in the overall context of the peace process, but will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will use his considerable personal influence to ensure that no such legislation is brought to the House before he has an absolute guarantee from those who control the paramilitaries and the political parties that are associated with them that the punishment beatings and expulsions will end? In that way it would be a two-sided agreement and not, like so many in the past, a one-sided one?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said about recognising the necessity of making difficult—indeed, distasteful—choices in moving the peace process forward. I will certainly listen very carefully to what he said. I repeat that there can be no place for punishment beatings, attempts to exile people or any so-called paramilitary activity which is outside the rule of law and destined to undermine democracy rather than support it. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I agree that we should make it quite clear that those people who have been excluded from Northern Ireland should be allowed to return.
    Paddy Tipping: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the equal value claim made by female canteen workers against the former British Coal? Although progress has been made and £40 million has been paid out to 1,300 workers, more than double that number are in the same situation and are set to receive nothing. The problem springs directly from bad practice by one of the trade unions. In the spirit of fairness, will the Prime Minister join us in looking for a solution?
    The Prime Minister: The relevant Secretary of State and I will note my hon. Friend's comments. He is right to state that we have paid out £40 million and that more than 1,000 people who were affected have received compensation. The difficulty is that strict rules govern whether equal pay claims are allowed and there would be considerable implications were we to digress from those.

    207
    I am happy to consider my hon. Friend's concern, but I am afraid that I can make no promises or give any undertakings in that respect.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Prime Minister break one of his new year resolutions and take time to speak to Mr. Ken Livingstone today? Will he
    208
    tell him that the mayor of New York is a welcome visitor to London today and that if Mr. Livingstone wants to know how to run a great city properly, he should have discussions with him?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly be in a better position to consider that after my discussions with Mr. Giuliani today.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following question No. 1 to the Advocate-General yesterday, have you been able to reflect on the difficult problems of media privilege on the one hand and parliamentary privilege on the other in relation to the trial that is taking place at Zeist on events at Lockerbie?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
I have no responsibility for what may or may not be said by the press. My responsibility is to the House and to uphold the rules that it has agreed will regulate its proceedings. It has long been the practice of the House that matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law may not be raised in debate or in other parliamentary proceedings, including questions.
On 15 November 2001, the House reaffirmed and clarified earlier resolutions about matters bound by the sub judice rule. The 2001 resolution makes it plain that the rule covers appeal proceedings. I understand that an appeal is currently being heard on the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I cannot, therefore, allow references to the case in the House until the appeal proceedings are ended. I hope that that helps him.
Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you prior notice of my concerns and you will have heard the exchange between myself and the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's Question Time. I have expressed concern over a period of time that Members should be able to rely on the accuracy of statements made by Ministers to the House. I am not satisfied with the response today and fear that the Prime Minister is unable to substantiate his comments. I seek your leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has written to me on that matter and I have replied to him. I will not comment on it when it is raised as a point of order. He has no right to continue raising it in such a way.

Patients Without Legal Capacity (Safeguards)
3.33 pm
Mrs. Helen Clark: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide protection for persons with a mental disorder who are unable to consent to being treated in hospital.
The Bill, which is supported by hon. Members from the three main parties, the charity Mencap and the Alzheimer's Society, attempts to close a loophole in the legal protection of the most vulnerable members of society. It would introduce a procedure whereby decisions that involve deprivations of liberty are taken in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law which can be challenged. That will ensure that patients who are informally detained benefit, as far as is practicable, from the rights that formally detained patients have under the Mental Health Act 1983 the moment a carer challenges the informal decision.
My Bill applies to people with a mental disorder who are unable to consent to being admitted to hospital. They have no capacity to consent to admission but are deemed from their behaviour not to have dissented to that admission. The proposals would apply to those with severe learning disabilities who are unable to make decisions for themselves and to people with dementia whose loss of capacity may be permanent.
The issue was prominently highlighted in the Bournewood case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is one of the Bill's supporters. The case is that of a 48-year-old autistic man, known for legal reasons as Mr. L, who cannot speak. Mr. L had been a resident at a hospital run by the Bournewood NHS trust and had gone to live with a couple who were his carers. They regarded him as one of the family. One day, at a day centre, Mr. L became agitated. His carers could not be contacted, and Mr. L was given a sedative and taken to hospital. The doctor decided that there was no need to detain Mr. L in hospital under the Mental Health Act as Mr. L was compliant and did not resist or attempt to run away. He was kept in hospital on an informal basis.
Mr. L's carers described the fact that they were not allowed to see him for nearly four months
"as of the greatest importance to Mr. L".
They demanded his release but had no legal basis on which to challenge the doctor's decision. The carers took action against the trust, claiming that he was unlawfully detained. The Court of Appeal ruled that he was unlawfully detained, but the decision was reversed in the House of Lords. The judgments relate to the scope of section 131 of the 1983 Act. This section preserves the right to admit on the basis of common law. Common law is a useful concept, but it contains none of the safeguards of that Act, and that is what my Bill seeks to address.
In any event, the concerns raised in the case of Mr. L certainly have not gone away. At the time of the judgment, Lord Justice Steyn said that those patients who would continue to be admitted informally would not benefit from any of the protections provided by the 1983 Act. In particular, they would continue not to have the right to apply for, or to be automatically referred to, mental health review tribunals in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

211
Currently, people who for whatever reason lack the mental capacity to consent or dissent can be informally detained indefinitely, on the opinion of a single doctor. Relatives and carers have no right to appeal against the doctor's view of the best interests of the person being detained; nor do they have a right to be consulted prior to the detention. There is no mechanism to review the lawfulness of the detention and no requirement to review the patient's conditions of detention. Such patients are not protected by any formal safeguards at all and have to rely on good professional practice to defend them. They are not even open to a writ of habeas corpus since they are not being detained. That places effective and unqualified control in the hands of hospital psychiatrists and other health care professionals.
I am aware of other cases. An Alzheimer's sufferer, Mrs. P, has been informally admitted to hospital because of her aggressive behaviour. She is very agitated and her carer—I shall call her Joyce—does not think that she should be in hospital, but Joyce has no legal basis for challenging the doctor's decision that Mrs. P should remain in hospital. The Bill would allow Joyce to challenge the decision on whether Mrs. P should be allowed to go home. The Alzheimer's Society tells me that this case is typical of those in a number of calls that it receives on its helpline each week.
I am not for one moment suggesting that all those cases should or would proceed to a tribunal. Speaking from experience, however, I think that if carers knew that legal safeguards were in effect, that would give them the confidence to dispute a decision to detain or continue to detain their loved one if they did not believe it to be in that person's best interests.
The Government have published a White Paper on the review of the Mental Health Act. It contains proposals to address the deficiencies in the current legal framework, but I do not know when a Bill will be introduced or whether it will deal with this issue. I believe that my Bill would do so in a simple and effective manner. It is not
212
about preventing informal admissions when nobody objects to them, about undoing the good work of the Mental Health Act review or about putting the cart before the horse in mental health reform.
We cannot ignore the fact that the Bournewood case has drawn attention to the deficiencies in the present law. Mr. L was detained without any right to have his detention reviewed by an independent tribunal. Only one month ago, the health ombudsman strongly criticised the Bournewood Trust for detaining Mr. L for four months. My Bill provides that once someone's placement is challenged, formal procedures come into play.
The way in which we choose to safeguard the rights of individuals who do not have a voice to speak up for themselves reflects our maturity as a civilised society. Reform is needed to uphold an individual's rights to liberty and to be treated with dignity, and to ensure their freedom from detention. We also need to safeguard against misjudgments and lapses of judgment on the part of health professionals—these can occur.
The law as it stands fails to give adequate protection to a vulnerable group of individuals, and it discriminates against those who are most disadvantaged and their families and carers. Mr. L's carers have already sought an application arguing that Mr. L's detention contravened article 5 of the European convention on human rights. I hope that the House will accept my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Clark, Mr. David Amess, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Roger Berry, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Tom Clarke, Dr. Julian Lewis, Jim Dobbin, Dr. Ian Gibson, Ms Debra Shipley and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

Patients Without Legal Capacity (Safeguards)
  PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS)
  Mrs. Helen Clark accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide protection for persons with a mental disorder who are unable to consent to being treated in hospital: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 94]

Standards and Privileges
[The Fifth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2001–02, HC 605-I & II, on the Complaint against Mr. Keith Vaz, is relevant.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 605-I); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Keith Vaz, Member for Leicester East from the service of the House for one month.—[Mr. Stringer.]

3.42 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I completely accept the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee and its recommendation. I apologise to the Committee and the House. In so doing, I underline my unreserved support for the integrity of the House and its procedures.
I am very pleased that the report clears me of all the main allegations made against me. I note what the Committee says about minor issues relating to events that took place eight and 15 years ago. However, the Committee was critical of me in respect of two further matters, the first of which relates to a telephone call that my mother received from, she believes, one of the complainants, a person all of whose allegations were dismissed by the Committee and who has for almost two years subjected my wife to constant attention.
That person, Eileen Eggington, who told Mrs. Filkin that she was a former protection officer of Margaret Thatcher and Salman Rushdie, has represented Rita Gresty, a former employee of my wife's law practice, in various claims against my wife, none of which has been sustained and none of which relates to me. Miss Eggington told Mrs. Filkin that Rita Gresty, sadly, has been suffering from a serious illness, and despite what has happened, I very much hope that she will make a full recovery.
I reported the call in good faith to the police and to Mrs. Filkin. My only concern in so doing was the welfare of my mother. My mother, a cancer patient who is seriously ill, has never been interviewed about those matters, although she is most willing to explain what happened. The police wrote to her on 25 January; I am most grateful for their response.
The second criticism is that I have not co-operated with Mrs. Filkin. I believe that I have co-operated in every possible way, and I have sought legal and other advice throughout the process to ensure that I have done so. I have given hundreds of answers and numerous supporting documents. I shall not rehearse again on the Floor of the House my real concerns about process. However, there is little point in having rules of procedure—written by the commissioner and agreed by the House on 5 April 2000—which appear not to have been adhered to.
May I make one plea for the future? It is that evidence collected by the commissioner should be retained so that the Member can examine it. My attempts to obtain a crucial tape recording of a meeting between Mrs. Filkin, Miss Eggington and Mrs. Gresty were frustrated when I was told on 5 February, three days before the report was published, that the tape had been erased. Mrs. Filkin
214

decided to publish her memorandum, as she herself stated, without my corrections of fact, comments or observations. She has a right to do so.
The inquiry, like others, has been dogged by leaks. Mrs. Filkin's report was given to a Sunday newspaper, and the Committee's draft report to another Sunday newspaper. I am grateful to the Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who has always been courteous and helpful to me, for initiating a leak inquiry. I am sure that he will pursue that vigorously, and I look forward to hearing the results. The leaking of a Select Committee report in this way is, of course, a contempt of the House.
Much has been made of my connection with members of the Asian community. I am proud of my ethnic origin. I am proud of what the Asian community has done. The community must always be allowed to take its rightful place in society, and I shall continue to raise the concerns of the Asian community in an appropriate way. I am also grateful to my constituents in Leicester, East for their tremendous support. I shall strive to repay that support with my continued devotion to them.
The House will shortly be debating the appointment of a new commissioner. I wish the new commissioner well, and I hope that we will have a new era in which the rules of natural justice and fairness are applied firmly. As Michael Beloff, in his opinion quoting Lord Atkin, said:
"Convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms."
I am very sorry that I have detained the House today and the Committee on these matters. I apologise again most sincerely to the Committee and the House. Plaudits from one's colleagues are always gratefully received. I assure hon. Members that criticisms from them are taken most seriously indeed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak. In accordance with precedent, I shall now withdraw.
3.47 pm
Sir George Young: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) felt unable to make a personal statement in the usual way. That means that I will need to say a little more than I had hoped. I am very disappointed that, for the second time in less than four months, I have to support a motion to suspend a fellow Member from the service of the House.
The report is my Committee's second major report and, like the last one, it brings to a conclusion an inquiry that was started in the previous Parliament. I am glad to say that the Committee is now up to date with its work. I believe that both the reports give further proof that the system of parliamentary self-regulation is working successfully.
I am grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for the hard work that they have put into the report over the past two months. We are all grateful to the commissioner for her work in investigating these complaints since last March—indeed, for her distinguished service to the House since her appointment three years ago.
I need spend very little time on the complaints originally made against the hon. Gentleman. Of the 11 allegations, we upheld only three, two of which we did not regard as serious. We are having this debate today not because of the original complaints but because of the way in which the hon. Member responded to them. We were

215
deeply dissatisfied with the way in which, he dealt with the commissioner. The commissioner described his approach to the inquiry as one of
"obfuscation, prevarication, evasiveness and delay".
The commissioner has a job to do which the House has given her. All Members have a duty to co-operate with her inquiries. We found that the hon. Gentleman failed to do so. He did not answer her questions fully, directly, clearly and promptly. We were dismayed that it took him five months to provide the commissioner with information about his property interests, which must have been readily available to him. All the relevant correspondence is published in our report, so hon. Members can read it if they wish.
The hon. Gentleman was criticised by the Standards and Privileges Committee in the last Parliament for failing to co-operate with the earlier inquiry into complaints against him. That makes his lack of co-operation with the latest inquiry all the more serious. We found that the hon. Gentleman had failed in his duty of accountability under the code of conduct.
The more serious charge against the hon. Gentleman is that he wrongfully interfered with the House's investigation process. According to his oral evidence to us, his mother received a telephone call on 4 October last year and the words "Eggington" and "Filkin" were used. Miss Eggington is one of the complainants in this case. He informed the police that Miss Eggington had made a harassing telephone call to his mother, linked her with another witness in the case and gave the police her address. Then he told the commissioner that Miss Eggington had made the call, had claimed to be a police officer and had put questions to his mother, claiming to be acting on the commissioner's behalf.
Those allegations went way beyond what the hon. Gentleman and his mother told us they knew. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman made it clear to the commissioner that he expected her to follow up the matter. He asked the commissioner what action she proposed to take over his allegations against Miss Eggington. Miss Eggington has strongly denied these allegations, and the Committee accepts her evidence. We do not believe that she made any telephone call to Mrs. Vaz.
The police are now satisfied that no calls were received on the day in question which could be attributable to Miss Eggington or the other witness. The police officer in charge of the case said:
"We have found nothing that would lend weight to the allegations originally made by"
the hon. Gentleman. The police officer continued:
"Indeed, I am satisfied that no malicious calls were made."
The police would not make such categorical statements unless they were absolutely sure that they were well founded.
The Committee is also satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's allegations are false, yet on the basis of his false allegations, both Miss Eggington and the other witness that the hon. Gentleman identified were put through the ordeal of being interviewed by the police. The commissioner was also led to investigate his accusation against Miss Eggington.
216
We concluded that the hon. Gentleman recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington to the commissioner, which was not true and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington or undermined her credibility. The hon. Gentleman also set the commissioner on a false line of inquiry, then accused her of interfering in a criminal investigation and threatened to report her to the Speaker. The hon. Gentleman failed in his public duty under the code of conduct and committed a contempt of the House.
The hon. Gentleman has made matters worse by his subsequent behaviour, which in my view has been aimed at undermining the entire investigative process. He was, perhaps, unwise to hold a press conference last Friday in which he sought to play down the severity of the Committee's report—he is quoted as saying:
"I am pleased that the Committee has found me innocent of many allegations"—
by focusing on the areas where complaints were not upheld and minimising the importance of those that were upheld. I believe that he was also unwise to criticise the punishment as "disproportionate" and the report as "misled".
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we leave the question of unwisdom, should not the House have some explanation as to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on the matter of leaks from the Committee? To some of us, that seems very unwise.
Sir George Young: I take the leaks seriously, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says. I have launched a leak inquiry. I hope that he will discover who leaked those documents as the leaking of them is damaging to the investigative process and the integrity of the Select Committees.
Returning to the matter of the punishment, we reflected carefully on the appropriate punishment. We did as Sir Gordon Downey proposed and had a tariff before us of all previous punishments. We were anxious to be consistent and to be fair to the hon. Gentleman and others who came before us. We unanimously agreed on the punishment, which hon. Members are now considering. It is for the House, not the hon. Gentleman, to decide whether it is disproportionate.
The report was not rushed out, as the hon. Gentleman asserted on Friday. The commissioner's report was completed on 13 December, two months before her term of office ended. It would have been submitted earlier if the hon. Gentleman had co-operated. I vigorously reject the claim that our report was rushed out to meet a deadline. We sat for many hours in January and February to complete it. We wanted to do that sooner rather than later because we believed that it was in the interests of the House and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman to conclude our inquiry. However, nothing was rushed about our proceedings and, as Chairman, I resent that implication. No voice went unheard, no argument was stifled. We deliberated responsibly and fairly, as hon. Members would expect.
The hon. Gentleman said, "Natural justice should prevail." Our findings against him show that he was perhaps ill advised to make a plea for natural justice. His strategy appears to have been to throw mud at the

217
commissioner in the hope that some might stick to the Committee. He asserted earlier that he had co-operated; he did not. He did much to obstruct our inquiry. He challenged the right of two members of the Committee to serve on it because they had signed an early-day motion. On the eve of our final meeting, he made representations that we should ditch the commissioner's report and start again.
We know that the hon. Gentleman has little time for the commissioner. The House is not debating her report, but that of the Select Committee. We read the commissioner's report and the annexes, we interviewed the hon. Gentleman and read all the documents that he presented to us. We then asked ourselves whether his behaviour fulfilled the code of conduct that the House has set.
In two similar debates, I said that the House is a forgiving place if an hon. Member admits that he has made a mistake. Even at this stage, the hon. Gentleman appears unable to acknowledge that he has done anything wrong. He has failed to apologise to Miss Eggington for what happened.
Our conclusion that the hon. Gentleman committed serious breaches of the code of conduct and contempt of the House was reached unanimously. We also unanimously concluded that he should be suspended for one month. I believe that we have been fair to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. I ask the House to endorse the Committee's report.
3.57 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to make a small but important point, which I hope will be helpful. I have not read the whole report; I suspect that few hon. Members have. However, I read the summary with great care and anxiety. Paragraph 50 states:
"In his response to the investigation of the complaints against him since February 2000 Mr. Vaz failed in his duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct by refusing to submit himself to the scrutiny appropriate to his office as a Member."
The date is important because at that time, and for a long time afterwards, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was a Minister of the Crown.
We have to ask whether the relationship between the code of conduct that applies to ordinary Members properly interrelates with the ministerial code that the Prime Minister issued in July 2001. Several aspects clearly need reviewing in the light of the case. I appreciate that that is not the Committee's responsibility, but the Leader of the House is responsible for representing the House's views to his colleagues in the Government.
The first paragraph of the ministerial code states:
"Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct in performance of their duties."
It is not clear whether that refers to their duties as Ministers or as Members of the House, from which they derive their authority as Ministers under our constitution. The statement is not supplemented or explained by paragraph iv on page 2, which states:
"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".
218
It would seem that that does not apply to an individual Minister's personal interests, or to information that he should be obliged to give to the Committee set up by the House to enforce our rules of conduct.
Even the seven principles of public life, which are set out as an annexe to the ministerial code, do not provide the clarity to which we are entitled. They mention a number of qualities, including selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability and openness. Openness seems to be the most applicable to this case, and to the report from the Committee. The part of the code dealing with openness reads as follows:
"Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands."
Again, it is by no means clear whether that applies in this case, or whether it applies only to a Member who happens to hold ministerial office at a particular time.
All that I ask is that the Leader of the House gives us an undertaking that there should be a review of the interrelationship between our code of conduct and the ministerial code. They cannot be completely separated. Ministers have authority only under the House and under our parliamentary democracy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an undertaking that this issue will be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
4.1 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has fully accepted the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I think that the whole House accepts the Chairman's statement that the report was drawn up with all due consideration and no undue haste, and that it was unanimous. Clearly, however, findings of this kind will cast a long shadow over the reputation of any Member of the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I say a few brief words about the report and the punishment that it advises. I have known my hon. Friend—and his mother, a redoubtable woman who, in another era, would have been an MP of a peculiarly frightening type—for more than 25 years. This is a serious report and its findings are serious, but it is also the case that my hon. Friend has always been a conscientious and hard-working Member for all the people of his constituency, and he remains a very popular Member to this day.
Much has been made of my hon. Friend's relationship with the Asian community. Some of the allegations—both in the report and in the press—turn on that relationship. I remind the House, however, that when my hon. Friend entered the House in 1987, he was the only Member of Asian descent in this House or the upper House. For years after that, he dealt with casework from the Asian community across the midlands, and raised issues of policy in relation to the Asian community across the country. I hope that the findings of the report will not detract from the diligence with which he has pursued those issues and helped those many thousands of people.
I first entered the House in 1987, along with my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and the then Member for Tottenham. It is hard to look back now and remember the euphoria with

219
which we all came into the House. We were all relatively young, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East was the youngest—the baby, if you like—of that particular gang. At that time, I do not think that we would ever have contemplated this type of report being produced about any of us, and it gives me great sadness to take part in this debate today.
4.4 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is indeed a sad occasion, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has just said. My view, for what it is worth, is that I would rather that there were no Register of Members' Interests or Committee on Standards and Privileges. I take what I recall to have been Enoch Powell's view on the Committee when it was set up, which is that we are trusted by our constituents to come here, and that we should be honourable people who can be trusted. About four years ago, a Labour Member informed me that he had been told that the rottweilers were after me because I had registered my disapproval of an action by the Prime Minister. We all dislike witch hunts; they do not add to the esteem of the House, and neither does this sort of occasion. I would rather that this did not happen, but, sadly, we do not live in an ideal world.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is a neighbour of mine in Leicestershire. That is why I am speaking in the debate, and why I submitted two complaints to the Standards and Privileges Committee, both of which were upheld. The hon. Gentleman and I have always had perfectly cordial relations, and I should hate to think that anyone believed there was a vendetta against him on my part or on the part of other Conservative Members. That is not the case. Indeed, it has been alleged that to make the complaints is in some way racist. That is not the case either. I made the complaints because in Leicestershire, as in all constituencies, allegations will be passed to a Member of Parliament if someone does not like what is going on in a neighbouring constituency and cannot obtain satisfaction from his or her own MP.
As I have said, both my complaints were upheld, although the Committee described them as not serious. I take issue with that slightly. My first complaint was that the hon. Gentleman had not registered a £3,000 donation from the Caparo company, or from Lord Paul, in 1993. That had been in The Sunday Telegraph some time last year, which is why I raised it. I hasten to add that I do not criticise Lord Paul in any way; but the explanation given for why the donation had not been registered was unacceptable.
The hon. Gentleman said:
"I was not aware that a Register was published in 1994. I was telephoned while I was at a European Council meeting in Stockholm. Access to Registers on a Friday night in Stockholm is not good."
I have always understood irony to be the lowest form of wit, and I must say that I concur in this instance.
The Committee said:
"We do not regard Mr. Vaz's initial failure to register as particularly serious, but he should have admitted his shortcoming frankly."
220
I will not take issue with the Committee, except to say that in my time as an MP no one has given me a £3,000 cheque for my association. People deal directly with the association. I am surprised that this should happen. Certainly, when large sums have come to the association, if not via me, they have been declared. I suspect that every Member on both sides of the House would say the same.
My other complaint concerned a law centre. Mr. Price-Jones, the former town clerk of Leicester city council, says:
"Mr. Vaz remained on the payroll of Leicester Advice and Information Services until at least the end of September 1987."
That was at least four months after the 1987 general election. It is not easy to forget that one is being paid for four months. It was suggested by the hon. Gentleman that he was taking a holiday. I do not know of many organisations that would give people such a holiday. It is not a very big issue; the reason I raised these issues—
David Taylor: I believe that my hon. Friend said not that he had taken a holiday, but that he had been paid for accrued holiday that he had earned in the time leading up to the general election. That is rather different, is it not?
Mr. Robathan: He did say that, but I do not think that he was employed long enough to be given such a holiday. The hon. Gentleman, of course, takes an interest in the issue because he too is a Leicestershire Member.
I will not drag out my quotations from the Committee's report, but Mrs. Filkin considered the argument spurious, and did not accept it at all. That is the point.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that he had been cleared of various complaints. In fact, hon. Members should read the report. It says that inquiries were incomplete on several issues. That is different from complaints not being upheld or indeed being cleared. [Interruption.] It is in the report. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is a member of the Select Committee, will read it.
This is part of a pattern since 1987. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that the hon. Member for Leicester, East was the baby of the group that was elected in 1987. He should perhaps have received better advice from his party Whips and party organisation. I do not believe him to be an evil person in any way. He could have been helped rather better here, but the problem is that it is part of a Labour party pattern.
I come now to the Labour party national executive committee inquiry and the Adjournment debate of 25 April 1995, to which Elizabeth Filkin referred, on local government in Leicestershire. In that debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) said:
"I have seen two detailed confidential reports to Labour's national executive committee. They were apparently sent to every member of that committee…under cover of a letter signed by 16 senior Leicester Labour politicians. They included…three former lord mayors of Leicester… the Labour party shows no signs of taking any action".—[Official Report, 25 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 762.]
The charges of interference in the affairs of Leicester city council—
Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that that forms no

221
part at all of the Select Committee's report? I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is going on about those things, which are not in any way, shape or form part of the report.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman must leave these matters to the occupant of the Chair but I understand the point that he makes and I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that we are discussing the report and he should direct his remarks to that.
Mr. Robathan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I most certainly will. The point is that that matter was referred to by Elizabeth Filkin and by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who is in her place, in evidence to Elizabeth Filkin in the report last year.
I should like to take up the district auditor's report, which deals with the same matter that was raised in that Adjournment debate. It said:
"Housing bosses were wrong to reinstate an evicted tenant after an MP intervened and this cost Leicester city council some £1,800"—
[Interruption.] Instead of laughing, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) should understand that this is part of a pattern.
Elizabeth Filkin, in her report, dealing with the evidence of the hon. Member for Watford, to whom I spoke before she came into the Chamber, states:
"They arranged a further day's hearing, but came to no immediate conclusions and made no report. Ms Ward told me she was surprised when, the next day, the Party's regional secretary issued a press release announcing that the inquiry was complete and that the membership's concerns were being dealt with…Ms Ward expressed her concern to the regional secretary about this purported summary of the inquiry's conclusions."
That was a big issue. "Dispatches" made a programme on it. "Newsnight" did a story on it. For the Labour party to pretend that it did not know what was going on in the Leicester, East constituency Labour party is bizarre, because the NEC carried out an inquiry into it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying rather wide of the report. He should direct his remarks specifically to the report before the House.
Mr. Robathan: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hear what you say and I shall not in any way transgress, except to say that I would like the NEC report to be published because it is relevant to what Mrs. Filkin was saying. [Interruption.] Since I am being so barracked, I will not go any further, but I hope—
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has the hon. Gentleman actually read the report, in which Ms Filkin says in fact that she paid no attention to the Labour party inquiry?
Mr. Robathan: I have indeed read the report. Mrs. Filkin paid no attention to that because it was not within her remit, but as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, it is within the remit of the Leader of the House. When he was Foreign Secretary, he said about the hon. Member for Leicester, East:
"I have seen nothing in any of the stories that have been produced about Mr. Vaz that are not innuendo and guilt by association as to where he is supposed to have broken the ministerial code of behaving properly as a minister."
222
Perhaps the Leader of the House will address that issue. He must have known about the NEC report, and perhaps he will publish it.
4.15 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: These are always melancholy occasions for the House and it gives no one any pleasure to deal with them. However, we must deal with them, as they are the key element in the self-regulatory mechanism that the House has set up to deal with such matters.
I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and all the members of the Committee for performing a difficult and melancholy task assiduously for a long period. I must also thank the commissioner for the way in which she has dealt with the matter, lengthy and complex though it has been.
I want to add my words to those of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). It is now time that the Government looked at the connection that should exist between our code of conduct, with which we are dealing, and the code that covers ministerial conduct. I do not want to press the point, but I hope that this occasion will give added impetus to the increasingly obvious necessity for that matter to be considered.
I hope that the House will support, with sadness, the recommendations made by the Committee in the hope that such support will represent yet another move towards right hon. and hon. Members understanding our obligations so that, in a sense, we can render the work of the Committee redundant.
4.16 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I add to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) by expressing the Government's thanks to the Chairman and all members of the Standards and Privileges Committee. We also appreciate the diligence with which the commissioner has pursued this case. The work that she put into it is fully recorded in the 150 pages of text that the House is considering.
No Member with a balanced opinion can come to such a debate without a sense of regret about the matter before us. Nor should we come to it without a recognition of the necessity of acting on such a report. That is why the Government have acted quickly to bring it before the House at the earliest opportunity. That is right, and, according to tradition, we shall accept the Committee's recommendations and we expect that the House will do the same.
I listened with care to the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), which, were echoed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I shall reflect on those points. They would both expect me to consider their remarks calmly and with the text in front of me. Whatever might be the narrow interpretation of the text, there can be no question of the Government not taking fully into account and acting on such a report, which resulted in a Member being suspended from the House. That suspension plainly has a severe implication for whether such a Member, if he were a Minister, could continue as a Minister, whatever the text might say. We can consider whether there should be an explicit read-across between the two texts.

223
With those few words and as the House will soon be ready to come to a decision, I commend the report. We shall certainly accept all its recommendations, and reflect on what it may mean for the future in terms of the ministerial code.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House—

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 605-I); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Keith Vaz, Member for Leicester East from the service of the House for one month

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
4.19 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I beg to move,
That Mr. Philip John Courtney Mawer be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 598, dated 6th February.
On behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I warmly recommend to the House the name of Mr. Philip Mawer as the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms set out in our report to the House.
The previous debate showed clearly the complexity of the commissioner's job and the qualities of toughness and persistence that are required; Mr. Mawer has those qualities in full measure.
I wish to pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin. It is no secret that the past few weeks have not been happy ones on either side, but it is right that we should acknowledge her dedication to her work on behalf of the House. She undertook a number of difficult and complicated investigations and brought them to a successful conclusion. We believe that her work, together with the Standards and Privileges Committee's consideration of her reports, has fully validated the system of parliamentary self-regulation set up following the first Nolan report. I will have a word to say about that system shortly.
Like many other hon. Members, I have known and respected Mr. Mawer for his work as secretary-general of the General Synod, and more recently as secretary-general of the Archbishops' Council. He is a person of clear vision, absolute integrity and strong moral values. You would not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to find those qualities in someone who has held the highest lay post in the Church of England.
Philip Mawer has much more to offer. He is a man of immense ability. He was principal private secretary to the Home Secretary, and when he was barely 40 he held one of the key jobs at under-secretary level in the Cabinet Office. Ten years before, as a relatively junior official, he was secretary to Lord Scarman's inquiry into the Brixton riots. Lord Scarman, whose views we would all respect, described Philip Mawer as a very clever and hard-working man, with tremendous mastery of detail. Mr. Mawer is a brilliant man in handling questions of principle. Since then, his career has borne out Lord Scarman's assessment.
It is reasonable to ask and answer two questions: Mr. Mawer may be clever, but is he tough enough? Is he not a bit of an insider? The House may not be surprised to hear that Church of England politics are at least as tough as anything that we are used to in this place, although the vocabulary used may be a little more restrained. The issues with which Mr. Mawer has grappled in his present job include the ordination of women, the role of bishops in another place—for the avoidance of doubt, I use our conventional phrase to mean the House of Lords rather than any more exalted forum—and racial discrimination. Such issues are neither simple nor easy.
In one of Mr. Mawer's previous posts he was responsible for Prison Service discipline. In another post, he was head of industrial relations for the Prison Service. A private secretary to one of the most senior members of Government also needs to be pretty tough. The House

225
of Commons Commission has no doubt that, as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he will be as tough as it takes. To use a phrase I used on television, he frightens the life out of me, so I do not know what he will do to our colleagues.
Is Mr. Mawer an insider? He certainly knows a good deal about this place and about politicians, which can only be a good thing. However, I inform anyone who thinks that familiarity will make him a soft touch that that is not likely to be the case. There is no shortage of people to testify to the fact that Philip Mawer is his own man and, if the House approves the motion, we will all soon come to know and respect his personal authority and independence.
Some may think that my description is of a rather fearsome person. No doubt, Philip Mawer can be fearsome when he wants to be, but he is also a man of understanding and trust. He will pull no punches in his reports, but he is someone whom I for one will readily consult in the certainty that our conversations will remain entirely private.
The Commission's report describes the selection process. We were determined to follow best practice for an appointment of this importance, and the interview board that produced the shortlist included two external members—Sir Gordon Downey and Lord Newton of Braintree, who is better known to us all as Tony Newton. In addition, the later stages of the sifting process, the meetings of the interview board and the final interviews by the Commission were observed by Ms Sheila Drew Smith, an independent assessor recommended by the Commission for Public Appointments. I should like to thank all three for their expert contributions, which were much appreciated.
Our report also notes that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, joined us for the final interviews. We were very glad to have his help, and to draw on his detailed knowledge of the work of the Committee and the commissioners. We look forward to hearing his views on the level of resources required to support the new commissioner's work, and to co-operating closely with him and his Committee.
I shall say a brief word about resources. Mr. Mawer's appointment will initially be on the basis that he will work three days a week, but it will be for him to judge how much time is required. If he thinks that four or five days a week are needed, there will be no difficulty about that.
David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend say why the commissioner will work for three days? The job of the commissioner who is leaving was advertised as requiring four days a week. More relevantly, she believes that the job should take up more than three days. I know that some would be happy if the job occupied only one day in the week, but I should have thought that four days would be far more suitable than three.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful for that intervention. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said in the previous debate that the work of his Committee had now concluded. Therefore, we will begin with a clean sheet. If the work requires three, four or five days a week, it will get three, four or five days. A pro rata increase in Mr. Mawer's salary would take that into account.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not think that the Committee's work is finished; other inquiries are
226
going on, and the former commissioner was dealing with them. The Committee will continue to make inquiries. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give the false impression that everything was suddenly clean, neat and orderly.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Commission found it necessary to give a large amount of backpay to the commissioner who has just resigned, as a result of the extra work that she had done? Will he also confirm that the commissioners did not act on the audit of the work that she was doing until after she had gone, and that she had been working under tremendous pressures? Will he explain—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has given the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) enough to answer.
Mr. Bell: With regard to the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I was simply repeating a point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire in his statement in the previous debate—that the publication of the report that we discussed earlier concluded a particular piece of work. No doubt there will be other work in the pipeline.
I have no knowledge of the second matter raised by my hon. Friend. I should be happy to send him a written reply and, if necessary, place it in the Library.
Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, and I am sorry to delay the House. Will he say how soon the new commissioner will be able to take up his post in full, given that he might work only one, two or three days a week?
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend anticipates my next paragraph.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to catch your eye a little later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As a former member of the Commission, the question of procedure and process is of great concern to me. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the commissioner would, if necessary, work more than three days a week. Is that provision formally and clearly set out in a proper contract of employment?
Mr. Bell: The answer to that question is yes.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, Mr. Mawer expects, if appointed by the House, to begin work from the beginning of March. Initially, he will work one or two days a week. The House will understand that it will take him a little while to relinquish his present responsibilities, but he will increase his commitment as quickly as he can. Those who know Philip Mawer as well as I do know that he will fulfil all the obligations thrust upon him, given that there are seven days in a week.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it somewhat surprising that, although the House of Commons has lost the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards under what he described as

227
unfortunate circumstances, our first opportunity to debate that is in a debate on the appointment of a new commissioner? Was that the view of the Commission, of which he is a member, or was the timing of the debate a matter for the usual channels?
Mr. Bell: The appropriate procedure is for the House of Commons Commission to propose the nomination of a candidate in a report presented to the House of Commons by the Speaker. The report was printed on 6 February and presented to the House; this is the first opportunity to debate it.
The House's internal revenue service is considering the staffing resources that the commissioner's office will require and we expect it to report to us shortly. We will then take the views of the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the new commissioner, and we have undertaken to provide whatever resources are judged to be needed.
I said that I would return to self-regulation. Our present system was introduced following the recommendations of the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan committee. Sir Gordon Downey, the first commissioner, pointed out in a recent article that the House went further than the Nolan committee recommended by giving the commissioner responsibility for assessing whether a case had been made as well as whether there was a case to answer. Sir Gordon also described the introduction of self-regulation as
"a major step for the House to take. Since Charles I and before, the Commons had spent much of its time resisting attempts by the monarchy to control it and the courts had no jurisdiction over it. Yet voluntarily, in 1995, the House subjected itself to outside scrutiny by a non-elected person. This was not a negligible reform."
There has been much discussion of late in the media about parliamentary self-regulation. In my view, self-regulation has to work; outside regulation could create profound constitutional difficulties. It is also my view that self-regulation works and that it will continue to do so. The key elements are the wise guidance and non-partisan recommendations that we expect from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and his Committee, the readiness of all of us to co-operate fully with the system and a strong, independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Mr. Mawer has all the qualities needed to ensure that the system of parliamentary self-regulation continues to work effectively, and that it is seen to do so both inside and outside the House of Commons.
Mrs. Browning: I have now had a chance to see the Speaker's paper, especially its provisions on resources. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pressing this point again, but it is pertinent to what I would like to say later if I get the opportunity. Has the new commissioner been given a formal written contract of employment—as we would understand the term in commercial environments, and as opposed to a job description—that clearly sets out not only the parameters and conditions of the job but the processes to be applied when disputes arise. I note that resources have now been brought under the remit of the IRS and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is extremely important, however, if the new commissioner is not to experience
228
the same difficulties as the previous commissioner, that there is a contract of employment that can be made available to members of the House of Commons Commission.
Mr. Bell: There certainly is a contract. It is a proper contract and, although I believe that it may be confidential, it covers all the points that the hon. Lady raises.
With that, I commend the motion to the House, and I commend Mr. Mawer to the House.
4.35 pm
Sir George Young: I should like briefly to endorse the speech made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and thank the Commission for allowing me to take part in the selection process to choose the new commissioner. The Committee on Standards and Privileges clearly has an interest in that appointment and I know that its members welcomed representation in the decision-making process. I found that process thorough and professional. We were confronted with some high-calibre candidates and, as a result, a difficult choice.
I welcome the decision to appoint Philip Mawer. He understands the House of Commons, but is independent of it. In my judgment, he has the right qualities of trust and discretion to develop the preventive and advisory role of the commissioner, to conduct investigations thoroughly and impartially and to prepare reports for the Committee. I look forward to working with him when he starts in March.
As the hon. Gentleman just said, Mr. Mawer's work will be especially important as the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Nigel Wicks, begins its review of self-regulation in the House of Commons.
I welcome the Commission's comments on resources, the fact that there is no restriction on the number of days that the commissioner will work and the recognition that the resources deemed necessary will be made available. That is welcome reassurance for my Committee.
Finally, may I pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin? As Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I enjoyed a good working relationship with her. I admire the qualities that she brought to the job. She handled some complex issues—one of which we have just debated—with thoroughness, impartiality and some courage. She displayed the independence that is a key part of the role of the commissioner. I thank her for her work and wish her well in the future.
4.36 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to echo some of the points that have been made before returning to some more formidable points that the House might briefly consider.
I endorse exactly what the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges said about Elizabeth Filkin; she genuinely will be a difficult act to follow. We often use that phrase, but it is true in this case. Mr. Philip Mawer's curriculum vitae gives me every reason to believe that he is an admirable person to try to do this difficult job on our behalf.

229
We should recognise that over the past few months the perception of our ability to regulate our conduct in this place has been, at best, under attack. Some would say that our ability has been weakened; our role needs to be reviewed.
I hope, however, that hon. Members and people watching, listening to or following our proceedings will take comfort from the way in which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee approached the difficult issue that we addressed a few moments ago. The report is admirable and will, I hope, restore to some extent confidence outside and inside this place in our ability to self-regulate.
I note the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about our being looked at by Sir Nigel Wicks and his colleagues. I hope that the evidence taken by Sir Nigel will not be all negative. I hope that he will see some merit in the way in which we have handled such matters in the recent past as well as some points for inquiry and possibly criticism and improvement.
I hope that Sir Nigel will look carefully at the crucial relationship between the work of the commissioner and that of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in performing the difficult and sometimes invidious task of self-regulation. On many occasions, Members of the House and people outside this place have drawn my attention to the fact that that relationship is critical in achieving effective self-regulation. I am concerned that, on occasion, either the Committee has not seen that role with quite the clarity or definition that we would have hoped for, or the commissioner has found it difficult to see the proper frontier between his or her role and that of the Committee.
As one Member put it to me, it is surely the role of the commissioner to act as the linesman—to put up the flag—but it is the responsibility of the Committee to act as referee. That may not be a perfect way to describe the respective roles, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it has some validity.
I share some of the anxiety that Members on both sides of the House expressed about how soon the new commissioner will be able to take up a full role and perform the full task that we are laying upon him. Initially—in a matter of weeks—he will be able to give us one day a week. If, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) responds to the debate, I hope that he will say how quickly we will progress to the absolute minimum requirement of three days; otherwise, a backlog will inevitably build up in a matter of months.
What period of notice do Mr. Mawer's ecclesiastical employers want him to work? Is he under a great obligation to them or, indeed, to a higher authority? [Interruption.] Hand signals are being given to me from across the House, although I do know not whether they are the result of divine intervention. A substantial backlog could be created within a matter of months, which would lead to a problem. We must hope that no cases are brought to the new commissioner's attention, but if they are it would clearly be unsatisfactory if his terms of employment failed to meet the needs of the House.
The House has not covered itself in glory by dealing with the matter as it has done in recent months—a view that is widely shared within it. Even if the media have been over-critical in some respects and have jumped to
230
conclusions, I am afraid that we have given them some cause to do so. We sometimes get the press that we deserve, and on this occasion we have.
I have a particular concern that is not new; indeed, I expressed it when the Braithwaite inquiry examined the way in which the House conducts its business, runs the building and performs its work. It seems invidious that we cannot question the Chairman of the Commission. Despite the responsibilities that we lay on the Speaker, we cannot challenge, question or probe him in the House. The issue before us should have brought that concern to our immediate attention.
I expressed that concern to Braithwaite in the different context of the financial management of the House, which involves millions of pounds. None the less, it is wrong to ask the Speaker to chair the Commission on our behalf, given that he cannot be accountable to, or answerable to, the House. We cannot question the Speaker in that manner, because to do so would endanger his authority in many other ways.
I hope that the Leader of the House, the Commission and the Speaker will look again at the problem, because it is likely to recur time and again if we do not address it now. That implies no criticism of successive Speakers or of successive members of the Commission. Back Benchers who are non-ex officio members of the Commission—at the moment there are two, but there will be three—serve the House in that capacity without payment, reward or recognition. Usually, they receive only brickbats, and we should think carefully about that. That role has been particularly onerous in recent months, and has subjected them to much criticism. I hope that we can consider that issue.
I pay full respect not only to the commissioner but to the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee undertook its responsibilities in particularly difficult circumstances in recent weeks. I enthusiastically endorse the nomination before us, but I hope that the Leader of the House and all those with a role in other parts of the building will think carefully about the issues that I have raised.
4.43pm
David Winnick: I begin by wishing the new parliamentary commissioner well—it would be wrong to do otherwise—and I hope that he will carry out his duties in the way that we would all wish. Indeed, I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, the circumstances in which Elizabeth Filkin is leaving today are, to say the least, disquieting. My speech will be critical of the fact that her contract has not been renewed. If that is a minority point of view, so be it; it is mine and I want to explain why I have reached that conclusion.
When the House debated Elizabeth Filkin's appointment on 17 November 1998, there was much praise for the way in which she had carried out her previous duties.
I have given the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) notice that I shall refer to his remarks, and I make no criticism of him. He said of Mrs. Filkin:
"I encountered her when she was adjudicator for the Inland Revenue. I was impressed by her commitment to her job and her staff, but, crucially, I was impressed by the fact that she retained the confidence of the Revenue, the body that she was investigating. That showed that she was fair, and that her work commanded respect."

231
Likewise, I sent a note to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was then a Home Office Under-Secretary. She spoke on behalf of the Leader of the House and said of Elizabeth Filkin:
"Her recent role as the adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department of Social Security Contributions Agency will ensure that she brings to the post a wealth of experience and a reputation for independence and integrity."—[Official Report, 17 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 809-21.]
Of course, that did not necessarily mean that the arrangement would work in practice, but my argument is that Mrs. Filkin brought to the position the qualities mentioned by those two Members. She is leaving because she was too independent and too determined to be fobbed off in the investigations. That is why her contract was not renewed.
Those qualities—independence and determination—are normally thought to be admirable, not a reason for what amounts to dismissal. Although I have encountered criticism of Mrs. Filkin—not in the Chamber, but around the place—I have not heard a single Member say that she is politically biased for or against any particular party. In view of the investigation she carried out, any such accusation would be laughable.
It is strongly denied that there was any whispering campaign against Mrs. Filkin, but she clearly does not accept that, as stated in the correspondence between her and the Speaker. I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that perhaps the question of who chairs the Commission should be considered. I make no criticism of the Speaker, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to quote the Speaker in debate, and one does not wish to do so because it is rather invidious. That is the situation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, the House of Commons praised the work undertaken by Mrs. Filkin. Indeed, she is praised in the House of Commons Commission document. Fine words, but this question is inevitable: if she carried out her duties in such a manner, why was she not reappointed?
Mrs. Filkin wrote to the Speaker on 28 November, and it is important for her view as set out in that letter to be heard:
"I wrote to the Clerk of the House on 5 November 2001 to request that you explain to me why it has been decided that, exceptionally, I would not be offered a second term. I have received no explanation. The Leader of the House, in response to a question about this new procedure of readvertising the post after one term, said that it had been adopted in the interests of openness and transparency. This is hard to accept. This arrangement was not required in the case of my predecessor, nor, it appears from the published advertisement, will it be for my successor."
It is up to the House to decide with what seriousness to take the following comment—I take it very seriously. She said:
"Security of position, which this decision violates, was established in relation to my predecessor. It applies across the board to Nolan-inspired posts which require independence and impartiality. Job security in such posts matters because it allows, where necessary, conclusions to be reached which may be unpopular with the employer in the short term."
Clearly, Mrs. Filkin is not leaving because she wished to do so. Clearly, she would have been willing to carry on in the position if her contract had been renewed. As I have said, we have had no explanation.
232
Why has not the present parliamentary commissioner, who will be leaving this week, been offered the position? It is said that she can apply for her own position—a rather humiliating situation, even if there was any chance that she would be accepted. Would a single hon. Member who is in the Chamber now say that, if Mrs. Filkin had gone through the humiliating procedure of applying for her own job, she would have stood a chance? No—the silence is adequate. The real criticism against Mrs. Filkin was not that she spoke to the press or that she involved herself in matters outside her remit. I do not believe that those allegations have any substance.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mrs. Filkin was regularly quoted in the press, including statements that she made on a Saturday, for example? How does he account for her having such ready access to the press on a day when servants are normally not available?
David Winnick: If the press rang the parliamentary commissioner and she was conducting an investigation, I see no reason why she should not have said so.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Winnick: I shall give way in a moment; I am replying to an intervention. Let us be clear—are we saying that, in effect, Mrs. Filkin has not been reappointed because she spoke to the press? If so, we should have had an explanation from the House of Commons Commission. Allegations about speaking to the press should be made official; let the House of Commons Commission say so, and we would then have an explanation that we could accept or reject. I do not think that we can work on the basis of what my hon. Friend has just said. I have a great deal of genuine respect for him, but I do not believe that that is a good explanation.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to make a differentiation about speaking to the press? Mrs. Filkin was entitled to speak to them about the nature of her work and her office, and we should not to impute from that that she was guilty of leaks, which she was not. I hope to deal with that later.
David Winnick: I entirely agree. I do not believe that she was responsible for leaking information in any way whatever, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has cleared that up.
Mr. Salmond: Would not the right way to bring complaints about our Standards Commissioner have been through the House of Commons Commission to the Floor of the House, where those issues could have been properly examined, debated and, I suspect, largely dismissed?
David Winnick: Indeed. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, it was up to the House of Commons Commission to deal with such issues. On reflection, it accepts that, in many ways, matters could have been dealt with very differently.
The critics say that Mrs. Filkin lacked a sense of balance and that she could not distinguish between serious allegations and those that were not in that category. Again, I do not believe that that was the case. She had a

233
duty to investigate fully. After all, until she investigated, how could she know whether the allegations had any substance? Let us not forget that this is not the Inland Revenue; this is a political battlefield. Hon. Members on each side of the House will make accusations against the other, as political ammunition. We are in politics—that is part of democracy. Such allegations are made, and it is up to the parliamentary commissioner to investigate them, recognising the place in which she undertakes her duties. She simply cannot say that they are tit-for-tat matters; she has to decide whether they have any substance.
The impression that one gets from the critics is that Mrs. Filkin had a wish to do down the Commons and make adverse reports as often as she could. I cannot for the life of me see why she should have any such motive. Why should she wish to do down the House of Commons?
An hon. Member, whom I shall not mention by constituency or name—I could not mention him by name in any case—told me today that he had been treated very fairly by the Standards Commissioner. He was one of several hon. Members who told me that the commissioner had asked to see them after allegations had been made about them as individuals, sometimes—as in the case of the hon. Member that I mentioned—allegations that were made outside the House. Such Members said that they were very impressed. They were heard courteously, their explanation was accepted, or very nearly accepted, and the commissioner made no adverse report but gave good advice. It is unfortunate that those hon. Members have not said that in today's debate; it would perhaps have given a sense of balance to what is happening.
When the parliamentary commissioner thought that there had been an infringement of the rules relating to outside financial interests, she said so regardless of position and seniority, and certainly party. Is not that what we wanted from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? Is not that the way in which we wanted the work to be carried out?
If we are to continue with self-regulation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has said should be the case, there is an argument that responsibility for appointing and renewing the contract of the parliamentary commissioner should be given to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. If that were to happen, the recommended person would be subject, or otherwise, to the confirmation of the House, and then of course the House would debate accordingly. However, self-regulation has its difficulties. We are saying, in effect, that we should appoint the parliamentary commissioner and decide whether the contract should be renewed. By following that procedure, we arrived at the present very unhappy position.
It gives me no satisfaction whatever to have been so critical, but I am, as my remarks have obviously shown. I repeat that I would have liked the parliamentary commissioner to be reappointed. It was a shabby aspect of the whole matter that she was not reappointed to her position, and Elizabeth Filkin is leaving in circumstances that do not bring much credit to the House of Commons.
Mrs. Filkin can leave with a sense of pride, because she has carried out her duties in the way that she promised when appointed. She has been impartial and conscientious. She has acted honourably at all times—that is my view and seems to be the view of the House of Commons Commission—and has undertaken her duties
234
with undoubted ability. She is going—let us have no illusions on this score—simply because she has been too conscientious. That is why Elizabeth Filkin will be leaving the services of the House of Commons this week. By not renewing her contract—by allowing her to leave in such circumstances and without good reason—I believe that we have let ourselves down.
4.58 pm
Peter Bottomley: To summarise what I am about to say, I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick).
I also agree with the nomination put forward for our approval by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). The House of Commons Commission and those who helped it have made a good choice. I imagine that if they had not chosen Mr. Philip Mawer, they would have picked someone just about as good. They follow in the line of those who chose Sir Gordon Downey and Elizabeth Filkin.
No criticism can be made of the quality of the people who have been nominated to serve our country by being employed as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
There is a question of fact about who the commissioner is actually employed by. We are told that it is the House of Commons Commission, but I have looked at the 23rd annual report of the House of Commons Commission, trying to find a reference to the Commission's responsibilities in employing the commissioner. I have not found one.
Opening the report at random—say, in the middle where the staples are—I see that the Serjeant at Arms Department uses traffic lights to denote whether targets have been met. If they were used to test the Commission's actions over the past year with regard to the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the traffic light would not be smiling as it is on page 44 because performance is below target.
I do not intend to criticise any individual on the Commission, although I will get fairly close to that with the Leader of the House. In August last year, an article in the Financial Times reported
"Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, is unlikely to have her contract renewed when it expires in January—despite recent supportive comments from Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons."
It goes on to say that the remarks by the Leader of the House in the previous month
"were designed to 'cool' the whispering campaign against Ms Filkin and that his words should not be interpreted as his formal backing that she should stay on."
I do not want to ask the Leader of the House to explain how those remarks got into the newspaper. All I want to do is to use them as evidence that it was on the record and known to the House of Commons Commission by then that there was a whispering campaign against the commissioner.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to ask me about that, but with his permission I will respond. I checked my diary after he raised this matter in the House some time ago. In the two weeks preceding 20 August, I was not

235
in London; I was in Edinburgh. I spoke to no one from the Financial Times throughout that period and can shed no light on how those words appeared there. If he is suggesting that I communicated them to the Financial Times, I hope that he will withdraw the comment.
Peter Bottomley: I would, but I did not suggest that. The right hon. Gentleman should be slightly less sensitive.
Mr. Cook: I am being criticised; of course I am sensitive
Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman should wait until I get around to the criticism. So far, he has responded to a question that I explicitly did not put to him. I accept what he says and have not contradicted him. He has not faced an accusation.
I was making the point that people knew about the whispering campaign. If the House of Commons Commission was fulfilling the role of employer and also, therefore, protector, of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, it needs to ask itself collectively whether any action was taken on the whispering campaigns against her before the Speaker's letter. I believe that the whispering campaign started long before that. The Commission should have taken action that would at least have become known to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about why the Commission did not intervene in the so-called whispering campaign. The Speaker wrote to Elizabeth Filkin but she was unable to supply evidence. Had the letter been sent earlier, there would have still been no evidence.
Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman did better in the first part of that sentence. The Speaker, in his role as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission rather than in his role as Speaker—the distinction is not important and I am not criticising him in any way—wrote the letter in November. The Financial Times had the report in August and it only confirmed what many people already knew about the attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by those who felt vulnerable.
All I am trying to establish is that the House of Commons Commission or a member of it first asked the commissioner about a whispering campaign in November. The letter could have been better drafted. It could have said that the Commission would protect the person fulfilling the function of the commissioner, whether or not the whispering campaign and the pressure were having an effect on that person.
It is some years since I gave up my fellowship in the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which used to be called the Institute of Personnel Management. However, my experience in personnel management is extensive. I have had ministerial and professional responsibility for it, and I know a lot about it.
What has happened to the present commissioner would, in most employments, be an open-and-shut case of unfair, constructive dismissal. I shall illustrate that with one example.
236
Answers from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who answers for the House of Commons Commission, say that the Commission knows that the commissioner has been working for five days a week. The Commission knows that it has been paying her for four days a week. It advertised her job at three days a week.
I turn now to the Leader of the House. On several occasions in the past two months, he has repeated the abbreviated remark, which is true, that the commissioner could apply for her job up to the moment when the applicants on the shortlist were interviewed. There is not a single recorded occasion on which the Leader of the House, speaking as a senior member of the Government and close associate of the Prime Minister, as the representative of the House or as a member of the House of Commons Commission, acknowledged in public that what he failed to say is that the commissioner could apply for her job, which she currently does for five days a week, on condition that she applied to do it for three days a week with 60 per cent. of her present work load.
Mr. Robin Cook indicated dissent,.
Peter Bottomley: When the Leader of the House shakes his head, I assume that he is agreeing with me.
Mr. Cook rose—
Peter Bottomley: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will say when, on the Floor of the House, he said that the commissioner could apply for her job, which she is doing for five days a week, but she had to apply to do it for three days a week.
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to respond by saying that what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not true. If the commissioner had applied for and got the job, she could certainly have asked to be appointed on the present basis, which is four days a week. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that if we had appointed her and she had sought to work for four days, then, just as with Mr. Mawer, she would have got four days. There is no question of her having been invited to apply on the basis of a cut in pay or hours.
Peter Bottomley: I shall not repeat it more than once, but my point is that I have not found a recorded occasion in the House in the past two months—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman would do better to listen. I have not found a recorded occasion in the past two months when he has stated the additional fact that he was inviting the commissioner to reapply for her job although it was advertised at three days a week. Not only was that fact not explicit; it was not mentioned at all.
We know that the commissioner was working five days a week, that the advertisement was for three days a week and that there had been a row about that reduction, but the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned that. From his reported remarks it sounded as though the commissioner could carry on as long as she applied—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary interventions do not help the debate.
Peter Bottomley: With the Leader of the House chuntering away like that, I almost feel that I should apologise for speaking. The point has been made, and I think that he accepts it.
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I will reply to his allegations.
Peter Bottomley: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cook: For the avoidance of doubt, there was never any suggestion, to Mrs. Filkin or to anyone else, that if she applied for the job and was reappointed, there would be a cut in pay or a cut in hours. Had she been reappointed, she would have retained her pay and her four days a week. Although the job was advertised at three days, we have made it plain in the House on several occasions that we were willing to discuss with whoever was appointed the number of days that that person would work. Indeed, I seem to recall my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) saying precisely that in relation to Mr. Mawer
Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House will be able to read what I said, and I hope that when he has done so, he will understand that his interventions have been off the point. I said that I would repeat what I had said only once, so I will not go on with that point.
We now come to the question of when the House of Commons Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, decided to pay the commissioner for the extra days that she has been working, when up to now she has not been paid for them. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough for saying that if a written question is tabled, the House will be given that information. I think that the answer will confirm my belief.
No one on the Commission has been motivated by malice. However, the Commission's responses to certain matters included a combination of mistakes and misunderstandings, and an impression of apparent malice on the part of some people outside the Commission has been created.
Some inaccurate answers have been given which the Commission has, rightly, corrected. For example, it gave an answer that said that Sir Gordon Downey had been working—and been paid for—three days a week. In fact, he was always paid for four days a week. When he left his post, he said that if the work load decreased, the job could be done in three days a week, and that may have been the comment that people had in mind. It was a simple misunderstanding and the mistake has been corrected.
What was not correct was an assurance that the Leader of the House gave me in October, I believe. He asserted—which I think means that he thought, but did not know—that the Commission had followed the advice by which the House expects Ministers to abide in the code on public appointments. That assertion was wrong in three respects.
First, if someone is not up to the job, they should not have the chance to be reappointed. From the right hon. Gentleman's saying that if Elizabeth Filkin reapplied, she would immediately be put on the shortlist—and,
238
we presume, treated fairly and on her merits—we deduce that she was not only up to the job, but proven to be so to the extent that she would have reached the shortlist.
Elizabeth Filkin was as competent as her predecessor, Sir Gordon Downey, who was sounded out, not officially by the Commission but by a senior member of the Government, about whether he would be interested in a second term. Having reached the age of 70, his answer was, "No, but thank you". I think that I am right in saying that the advertisement for Elizabeth Filkin's successor states explicitly that reappointment was possible by mutual agreement. The House and the country are left with the question of why Elizabeth Filkin was not sounded out about reappointment. We have had no answer—perhaps there is none, but the question is real.
A second feature of the code on public appointments is that people should be required to go through open competition if they have served for 10 years, or if they are on their third term. Neither condition is true of Elizabeth Filkin: she would have been seeking a second term, or the House ought to have been seeking a second term for her.
Thirdly, if people are not to continue, they should have a decent amount of notice of that fact. Had Elizabeth Filkin applied for her own job at the advertised three days a week, she would have known whether she had got the job a week ago—a week before her current term ends. That breaks the code on ministerial appointments. Although the Leader of the House might have been right to say that he believed that the code had been followed, that belief, albeit genuinely held, was wrong on the three grounds that I have outlined.
The system matters. It does not matter whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is officially responsible to the House of Commons Commission, which has not distinguished itself in that role in the past three years, or to, say, the Committee on Standards in Public Life or its Chairman. That distinction is not especially important except to the secular theologists who advise the House.
It is right to consider whether the term should be longer, and whether reappointment should be offered unless there is a reason not to offer it. The current position is illustrated by the curious circumstances of the end of Elizabeth Filkin's term. She is right that the current assumption of independence and support for impartial, fair and competent work by her office has been challenged by the events of the past six months.
The only modification that I would make to the operation of the complaints procedure—only a minor part of the work load of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—is that in normal circumstances, a person making a complaint should be asked whether they have put it directly to the Member concerned. If the answer is no, the commissioner should urge the complainant to do so. Many misunderstandings could be dealt with and problems rectified if that were a preliminary step. However, that is a step for the House to institute, not for the commissioner herself.
I remind those who listen to our debates that the commissioner does not write the rules—the House writes them.
I turn to the curious—in a proper sense—appointment of Mr. John Stonborough to advise the Commission. I have not met him, and I will not be critical, but he has

239
a reputation as an adviser on crisis management. I do not fully understand why, if it is dealing properly with the appointment or reappointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Commission, or the House itself, would need such an adviser.
It is unfortunate that the "Londoner's Diary", in the Evening Standard, carried a report apparently directly quoting Mr. Stonborough. I do not think that any direct quotation in a newspaper necessarily means that the words were said or, if they were said, that they were reported in context. He was reported to have said something about the argument being one-sided and that, in some sense, he would balance that. The debate or argument ought to be in the House.
That leads me to the Prime Minister's answer to a question from—I think—the hon. Member for Walsall, North on the reappointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Prime Minister said that it was a matter for the House. Within hours, the Leader of the House said, "Yes, and it will wait until there is a nomination from the House of Commons Commission on who the successor might be", and that it would be possible for a Member to table an amendment to such a motion, substituting the name of Elizabeth Filkin for that of, say, Philip Mawer.
For all sorts of reasons, that is not a happy or sensible way of proceeding. The Leader of the House was wrong to suggest that it was. It clearly showed that, whichever hat he was wearing at the time, he was deliberately frustrating the option for the House to debate the merits of Mrs. Filkin. In fact, of course, we are debating the merits of Philip Mawer, which are not only self-evident but have been proclaimed by Members.
I do not think that the Prime Minister has his heart in this standards business. His whiter than white and cleaner than clean remarks do not really stand up. He has not explicitly made abiding by the parliamentary code part of the ministerial code, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said.
I commend to the Prime Minister his declaring, in his own voice, that abiding by Members' responsibilities is part of being a Minister, so that any Minister from now on who does not fully co-operate with the parliamentary standards procedure, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in particular, will cease to be a Minister. The option not to do so should just go. Then, the remarks that, sadly, were made in the previous debate on the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) by a Minister would not be necessary, although Members of Parliament could still draw such matters to the attention of the House.
The Prime Minister did not require the Deputy Prime Minister to accept the invitation from the Committee on Standards and Privileges to register the union flat. Frankly, the Prime Minister should have said to the Deputy Prime Minister, "You should." We have not had any explanation from either of them as to why that registration has not occurred.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: What has this got to do with the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?
Peter Bottomley: In response to that question from a Government supporter, I was adding a few remarks on how I believe that the Prime Minister could help the system of which the commissioner is a significant part.
We then come to reports about the media and Elizabeth Filkin. The matter was first brought to my attention by somebody who asked me, "Did you see what she said at the Royal Society of Arts?" I asked, "What is she said to have said?" The Member pointed it out to me. I said, "I was at that meeting. That wasn't what she said; it wasn't the way she spoke. I was present, you weren't. What's the complaint?" I was told to look at what had been reported. Too many people seem to be sensitive about what is reported. The fact that the House of Commons Chamber is dominated at one end by a Press Gallery that is full of people who have the option to report what is said in the Chamber or spend their time listening to what people say in the Corridors seems to have passed such people by.
Commissioners—past, present and future—should be judged on what they are employed to do. I hope that, from now on, every commissioner will do what previous commissioners have done: explain their role and frankly answer questions about whether there is an inquiry into a complaint against a Member of Parliament. If the commissioner is not allowed to say yes or no to that, whispering campaigns against Members occur.
The parliamentary standards process is as good a protection to the public and to Members of Parliament alike, and it requires the commissioner to be able to give such factual answers. I have not heard the slightest whisper from a single journalist on any occasion during the past three years that Elizabeth Filkin said anything improper or out of order with regard to a current inquiry, unless it is considered improper for her to confirm that an inquiry is taking place or to say that no inquiry is taking place.
I think that Philip Mawer will do well. I think that Elizabeth Filkin did well. If he does as well as she did, or, certainly, as well as Gordon Downey did, the House will be well served.
As a tribute to Elizabeth Filkin, I quote the remarks of a director of the Britannia building society, who said that the question asked by the company about every proposal was whether it would pass the Filkin test—in other words, whether it was right. That is the question that she had to ask about what Members of Parliament were doing. Each of us, whether we came under her invigilation or not, will find that her advice has been good.
I hope that Philip Mawer's advice will be equally good and that he will have the support of the House. Elizabeth Filkin did not have that support from every quarter. It is about time that senior Members of the House, whether in government or not, gave her the support that she deserved, and they should give Philip Mawer the support that he will need.
5.20 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: As I did not take part in the previous debate, may I congratulate the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee on

241
the fairness and objectivity with which he presented the case on behalf of the Committee? It is no more than any of us would have expected of him.
I join others in endorsing the nomination of Mr. Mawer. I do not know him, but what I have heard of him suggests that he has every prospect of being able to take on a job which has certain fundamental flaws within it. The first flaw was touched on by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley).
In the opening speech of the afternoon, there was a comment about the rules written by the commissioner. The rules were not written by the commissioner; they were written by the House of Commons. The problem for the House of Commons and for the commissioner was that when the House of Commons approved them, it did not understand the severity and tightness of the rules that it had introduced. The commissioner therefore bore much of the blame for carrying out the new standards and rules that the House, perhaps unwittingly, had determined. She should not be blamed for that.
The rules post-Nolan were made much tighter than many people realised. Indeed, we have made recommendations for a slight loosening of the rules, which I hope will be brought before the House in the near future.
The second flaw is the system. That was the point that I made when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) was kind enough to let me intervene on his speech. As I said, I do not see that there is any problem with the commissioner speaking about her job. The allegation was of leaks.
As I was saying, the second flaw is the system itself. Within the system, anyone—too many people have been playing games in the House, as we know, with tit-for-tat referrals—can refer any colleague, or any outsider can refer any Member, and tell a journalist that he has done so. If that journalist then contacts the commissioner's office to confirm that the letter has been received, the next thing that we see is a headline "Sleaze inquiry against local Member"
Mrs. Browning: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are occasions when a matter comes into the public domain and is commented on in the Chamber. It is then put to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to investigate. However, when Members of Parliament decide to refer a matter to the commissioner for investigation, it is incumbent on them to wait for the conclusion of that process before notifying the world at large. I have made only one such referral to the commissioner, and I abided religiously by that rule. It would have been most unfair to have made the matter public before the commissioner had had a chance to conclude it. It is inevitable that the commissioner will be asked by the press if the matter goes the other way.
Mr. Williams: May I embarrass the hon. Lady by saying that I am sorry she gave me that prompt, because I was going to commend the way in which she dealt with the matter? The referrals that she made were based on a misinterpretation by the press of certain circumstances, and she could have tried to get easy publicity out of the situation. The referrals were then rejected by the commissioner, who never made any public comment on them. Since receiving that rebuttal, the hon. Lady has not attempted to make any political capital out of the matter.
242
That is how it should be done. I promise her that she was already in my mind because the case happened so recently.
Many of the so-called leaks were, for no reason, attributed to the commissioner. No one has ever been able to prove that against her. The person making the allegation has only to give the press the information that he has given the commissioner, which the commissioner may have shown to the witness, and the press can run a story based on the allegation without having got any information or endorsement from the commissioner.
David Winnick: Has there ever been a case in which Labour, Conservative or Liberal Members have made such allegations to the commissioner without telling the press what is going on? Being politicians, that is the first thing that they are likely to do. Why should anyone be surprised about that, given the nature of this place?
Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is putting the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in a most embarrassing position—her halo is positively glistening. She is genuinely one of whom I can say—
David Winnick: One exception.
Mr. Williams: She is the one who comes to mind, but there have probably been others. Indeed, there must have been, because the commissioner has often said, "I have had five or six referrals", and we have seen nothing about them in the press. Some hon. Members show integrity; others, unfortunately, cannot resist a headline and do not care what malicious damage they do to parliamentary colleagues by exploiting the situation.
Mrs. Browning: In the run-up to a general election, it has been the practice of some hon. Members spuriously to refer a case involving another Member to the commissioner so that they can say in their election literature that that Member is under inquiry by the commissioner, in the knowledge that there is insufficient time for the matter to be properly explored. Looking below me down the Gangway, I can see Liberal Democrat Members nodding; they know what I am talking about. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must try to ensure that that does not happen?
Mr. Williams: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, and I do not exonerate Members of any party from that practice. The tragedy is that Members who have been so self-indulgent have not recognised that they damage not only the Member against whom they make the allegation, but—cumulatively, along with others who are doing the same—the House of Commons by giving the impression that it is sleaze-ridden. In fact, most of the referrals of the past five years did not deal with what would in the past have been described as sleaze.
Whispers are a reality of the House of Commons—that is a systemic problem—and some may be malevolent or malicious. It is a function of the way in which the House works. One has to come in here every day—the Whips make sure of that.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: Quite right, too.
Mr. Williams: Well, sometimes we listen to them. Day in, day out, we have to carry on working with friends—

243
or, worse, people who are not friends—who are aware that investigations are going on. It is understandable, if we are locked in here from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night and we want to get something off our chest, that we go and talk to our colleagues. A lot of the so-called whispering is what I would call self-exoneration, or trying to explain things away. Cumulatively, however—because in many cases the exoneration was not endorsed by the Committee—that also damaged the commissioner because it gave, perhaps inadvertently, the impression of unreasonableness.
My next point goes off at a tangent, in a way, but it follows on from my complimenting the Chairman of the Committee. During the fast Parliament, I stood in as Chairman when my parliamentary colleague, now Lord Sheldon, was ill. It is correct that we are now doing in this Committee what we have always done in the Public Accounts Committee. All Committees in this House have a Government majority. In Committees dealing with standards—the PAC deals with standards of financial propriety; this Committee deals with standards of behaviour—and those that deal not with Government matters but with House of Commons matters, it is important that there should be certainty in their independence.
We have always accepted that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee should be a member of the Opposition; that created a good precedent. I hope that that will be sustained by future Governments of whichever party, and that the Chair of the Standards Committee will also always be from the Opposition. That would help to get rid of the nonsensical arguments that arise when unanimous decisions are made in the Committee, yet people in the lobby write, "Government majority on Committee dragoons its members and forces them into decisions."
Peter Bottomley: I want to add a footnote in case any historians look at this. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there was no suggestion that Robert Sheldon, who chaired the Committee during the previous Parliament, behaved any differently—although he was a Labour MP—from the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has? The right hon. Gentleman's point about the appearance of greater impartiality is a good one, however.
Mr. Williams: I am not impugning anyone in any way. In this Committee so much depends on perception and on people outside believing in what we do, instead of doubting what we do. I am going to say something now that will offend two of my colleagues—I had not intended to say it—but it is not meant to, because they are excellent members of the Committee. However, in this Committee more than any other, its members have to make a choice. They should either be a Parliamentary Private Secretary and not be on the Committee, or vice versa. This Committee must be as detached as possible in every way from the Executive.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) for saying that, because his legal advice has made an invaluable contribution to the Committee over the last five years, particularly in the last Parliament, when lawyers—I apologise to my hon. and
244
learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) here—did not abound in the Committee as they now do. That expertise was most welcome, and I hope that he will choose to stay on the Committee. However, I think that most hon. Members would understand if he felt that he had to keep one eye on his career prospects. Perhaps the Leader of the House could reassure him that if he made the right decision it would in no way undermine his prospects.
I have spoken for too long already, but this is my final point. As one who has worked as an acting Chairman with the present commissioner, I pay tribute to her assiduity, her determination and her meticulousness. Those qualities were a nuisance if one had something to hide; they ceased to be a nuisance if one had nothing to hide. The qualities she showed in investigating cases were of the highest standard, and I wish her well in whatever job she goes to.
5.34 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: When I was shadow Leader of the House, I was a member of the House of Commons Commission. I do not want to discuss some of the points that have been raised today in detail; I would prefer to speak in general terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) prayed in aid his experience of employment law and good employment practice in a former life. I too have experience of a former life—my business life, in which I spent a lot of time advising organisations, especially in the corporate sector, on communication.
When, as a member of the Commission, I considered the point that we had reached with the last Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mrs. Filkin, I decided that the House should do something about one aspect, although it might not be unusual here. The House is not a good employer. We are not good at applying best practice in the way in which we, as MPs, would expect it to be applied in the wider business world. I think the House is now addressing that problem—the Braithwaite report, which was mentioned earlier, was an extremely useful exercise which put us on the right track—but we are not there yet.
In my short experience as a member of the Commission, I concluded that many aspects of communication—both verbal and written—had led us to the situation we are debating today. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Mawer, but it would be unacceptable if we did not learn the lessons and put them into practice pretty rapidly.
The House may recall that I questioned the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) about a proper contract of employment. I think that that is essential. I also think that the rudiments of what we would expect to find in such a contract should be accompanied by an outline, in terms, of the procedures to be followed not just when the Commissioner felt there was a need to apply for more resources, but in the event of a breakdown in communication with the Commission—either directly or through the Speaker—or when outside queries from the media and others must be handled. This is about process, not the definitive role of the commissioner in investigating individual complaints—that being part of the commissioner's remit. I believe that the last commissioner worked without that framework, which is absolutely necessary if communication is to be facilitated at all levels.

245
We have just had a little exchange about the way in which things go wrong when the commissioner speaks to the media—and yes, there have been complaints about a whispering campaign in the House about the last commissioner. There are procedures to resolve such problems immediately, if someone takes the trouble to think the process through and set it down. The problems will arise, owing to the nature of the job and the number of people with an interest—not least the media, who can be quite pernicious in their own pursuit of what the commissioner is up to. If the process for dealing with those problems is not properly structured and set out, and is not part of the employment contract and terms of reference given to the commissioner on appointment—or if there is no procedure for adding it to them—we shall inevitably find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves with Mrs. Filkin. In the end, rightly or wrongly, for a variety of reasons, the commissioner lacked trust in the House and the House lacked trust in the commissioner. As an employer, it is incumbent upon the House to resolve those matters. It is incumbent upon us as employers to ensure through the Commission that we obtain good advice, if that advice is not readily to hand, so that the new commissioner's contract and terms of reference are clearly set out.
The post of commissioner is relatively new. The way in which investigations of Members of Parliament are carried out when a complaint is made is relatively new. In one or two of the more high-profile cases in the previous Parliament, the commissioner perhaps started to investigate areas that she had not investigated before. People started to say, "Is it right that she should look at that aspect of a case and that that should command more resources?" I am not going to say in a judgmental way that it was right or it was not right. All I am saying is that that matter needs to be dealt with. As and when they arise, such issues must be resolved in a timely fashion by either the commissioner or Members of Parliament.
It is a pretty simple procedure; it is not exactly rocket science. Any large organisation in the financial sector would have such a procedure in place and would be able to solve problems as they arose. We have experienced a festering over several years of many issues, all of which deserve to be addressed. However, no one took responsibility to resolve those problems.
A breakdown in communication inevitably results when a situation evolves in that way. We end up with a situation such as we had with Mrs. Filkin. When the contract came up for renewal, it was not immediately clear to many people involved exactly what the procedure was.
Peter Bottomley: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for at least slightly opening the curtains—
Mrs. Browning: I hope that I am not.
Peter Bottomley: May I put it this way? If there were thought to be problems and if the commissioner and the Commission did not meet, that is a failure of communication on the part of the employer. If the Commission did not consult the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is with the commissioner virtually every week, there would seem to be a slight communication problem, so my hon. Friend is right to say that lessons can be learned.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am shutting the curtains as quickly as I can; it was not my
246
intention to open them. I am sharing an observation with the House as someone who has experienced these problems in another scenario. I could see how the situation had evolved.
One of the difficulties with problem solving is knowing and identifying the problem in the first place, rather than just living with what can become a festering sore, where everyone involved is disgruntled for a variety of reasons but no one takes responsibility for dealing with the situation and for solving problems as they arise.
A proper professional framework needs to be set out so that problems can be avoided in future. It is simply a matter of good practice in the management and employment of people, whether they be a parliamentary commissioner or anyone else for whom we are responsible. The House must raise its game and adopt 21st-century practices in managing its affairs, particularly in relation to employment contracts and the framework that is set out when people are employed, for which we or a Committee have responsibility. It is not acceptable for the situation just to go on and on. Someone must take responsibility.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that the new contract for the new commissioner is confidential. I accept that what is type-written in the contract is confidential, but I hope that it will be comprehensive and that the annexes, if not the main document—I trust that there will be annexes—will cover the proper procedures for problem resolution and for reporting back, setting out who the key people are to approach when these matters arise again, whether it be my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, or whoever. Unless that is written into the new commissioner's contract, we will go through the whole exercise again and the House will be the poorer for it. We must learn the lessons from the employment of Mrs. Filkin.
As a lay person looking in from the outside, there were times after reading the ultimate report when I did not agree with Mrs. Filkin's judgment on individual cases and other times when I did agree, but that is what happens when responsibility is devolved to someone so that they can independently take a detailed look at matters that are reported to them. That is their job. Inevitably, we are not all going to agree or disagree with the outcome of individual reports.
The Braithwaite report has been a wake-up call to the way this establishment is run. As a Parliament, we spend a lot of taxpayers' money and we are responsible for the employment of a great many people at all levels in the House. We must be as professional and as transparent in our dealings with them as we would expect them to be, and as we inevitably expect any business organisation to be outside.
5.46 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Far be it from me to bring disunity to the Chamber, where unity usually reigns on occasions such as this, but the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was not quite to my taste. To be honest, I found it unctuous. It bordered on hagiography.
What we need is what we had in Elizabeth Filkin: a rough-hewn character capable of fingering the collar of dodgy people who are self-serving and all too willing to

247
kick up a fuss when the heat is on. As a one-time robust criminal barrister, I admired her style. Instead we will get a member of the great and the good, an establishment figure who will bed himself in as and when he can wind down his many other important activities. Personally, I doubt whether a sophisticated insider and dextrous mandarin who is capable of reading the tea leaves in this place is the sort of person we want.
Moreover, unless I am much mistaken, as that person is a Church Commissioner he must be a member of the Church of England, an organisation of which I was a member before I became an atheist. When I was in the choir, I was told that to be a good member of the Church of England, I had to eschew theology, shut down my moral faculties and demonstrate that the only principle to which I adhered was the lack of a principle. I was told that the Church of England was a Church where doubts very occasionally led to consensus. I am not sure that that is what we want in this case.
Mr. Salmond: Is atheism widespread in the Church of England these days?
Mr. Sedgemore: If I went down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would pull me up, but there was a well known Bishop of Durham who was pretty close to being an atheist.
As regards Elizabeth Filkin, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said. A few weeks ago, I paid a heartfelt, personal tribute to Elizabeth Filkin in an article in Tribune. I shall not go through it because I know that every hon. Member reads my articles in Tribune, but I genuinely believe that she was badly treated by Members of Parliament, and on occasions badly treated by the Committee to which she gave such devoted service and, dare I say it, by the House of Commons Commission itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said that Elizabeth Filkin would not give any evidence, but one would have to live in a time capsule in this place not to know that there was a whispering campaign, which on most occasions developed in front of me into a shouting campaign. All I can say is that, if the hon. Member for Middlesbrough or any member of the House of Commons Commission really believes that there was not a whispering campaign, they would not do so if they had read my article in Tribune, unless they are wholly incapable of understanding the ordinary and natural meaning of simple English words.
Furthermore—I am rather loth to say this, but given some of the stuff that we have heard, I will do so—a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee once described Elizabeth Filkin to me as "mad". Some time later—I remember the day, as will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it was the last time that Oxford university played Cambridge university at rugby, and the only redeeming feature of that dreadful match was that Oxford university won—I rushed back here to do my House of Commons duties and a member of that Committee told me that Elizabeth Filkin had left not only a job at the Inland Revenue but a job at the London Docklands development corporation under a cloud. When I asked for more information, I was just told that "they"—
248
the impersonal, unknown and unnamed "they"—were saying it. If that is how a member of the Committee can behave, I apologise to Elizabeth Filkin. I also apologise to her because, until I wrote my article in Tribune three weeks ago, I had not said much on the matter. I am sorry that we—and I—have let Elizabeth down.
5.51 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is a marvellous self-publicist. I hardly dare speak because I must declare an interest as a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and as an Anglican who is not an atheist. The hon. Gentleman was having fun in his inimitable way, and I shall not follow him down some of the paths to which he pointed. However, I shall make sure that I get hold of his article in Tribune—doubtless he will send me a copy, which he will autograph, I hope—and I shall read it with great interest over the weekend. Whether I shall read it with much profit is another matter.
I want to take part briefly in this debate, but not because I want to talk about Elizabeth Filkin, whom I did not have the pleasure of knowing. I do not want to say anything detrimental about her; in fact, I am not able to say much about her at all. I am sure that she sought to discharge her duties with assiduity. As for the future, however, we must consider the way in which we appoint our commissioners. There is a lot to be said for appointing a commissioner for one term—perhaps a longer term than the present one—which would not be renewable. That would allow the commissioner to behave without fear or favour in any way.
It would probably be wise, in the light of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), to consider the issue of publicity. Perhaps every commissioner should either make a self-denying ordinance or have imposed on him or her some sort of restriction on speaking to the press about any matter. Officers of the House do not speak to the press as a matter of course and tradition. There is much to be said for that tradition. The Clerk of the House does not give comments to the press whatever advice he may give to the Speaker or anyone else.
What I really want to say stems from my membership of the General Synod. The House would make an exceptionally wise choice if it were to appoint Mr. Philip Mawer and endorse the recommendation made in a speech that was not at all as described by the rumbustious hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—the hon. Gentleman who represents Hackney marshes. I have known Philip Mawer for a long time. I knew him when he was a civil servant, although not well, and I know that he was highly regarded in the roles that he played in the civil service. I have seen him at first hand in the General Synod, and I believe that he has clarity of thought and an analytical mind. I know that he has gentle and self-deprecating good humour. A sense of humour is terribly important in a job like the one that we are considering.
I also know that Philip Mawer has the ability to be impartial. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is the Second Church Estates Commissioner, talked about Church politics. I do not want to say too much about them, but I must point out to the

249
hon. Gentleman who represents Hackney marshes that, if one can cope with Church politics, one can cope with the politics here. Church politics are at least as unscrupulous and devious as anything seen in the House of Commons.
Mr. McNamara: Speak for your own Church.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am talking about the established Church of England of which I am exceptionally proud to be a member. I do not seek to cast aspersions in the direction of Rome.
We must bring a certain humour to our debates. If one can cope, as Philip Mawer has coped, with the General Synod of the Church of England, one can cope with the House of Commons. His work has been remarkable because he has not forfeited the respect of any of the factions or groups—those on the Catholic or evangelical wings, the traditionalists or modernists—but has enhanced his reputation by the way in which he has dealt with them. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough knows that as well as I do, and I am sure that he would agree entirely with me on that point.
In the time that Mr. Mawer has been at the General Synod, he has been an exceptional public servant of outstanding quality. We are extremely fortunate that he wished to apply for the post and we owe our congratulations to all those—I played no part in this myself—who decided to choose Philip Mawer from what was a distinguished field. He has it within him to be a great servant of the House. I wish him well, and I hope that the House will endorse the recommendation before us.
5.57 pm
Ross Cranston: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the events of recent months had not done the reputation of the House much good. I agree with him. We have not covered ourselves in glory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and others have mentioned the qualities of the retiring commissioner. I have spent a short time on the Standards and Privileges Committee and there can be no doubting her dedication and hard work. The machinery of the independent commissioner reporting to the Committee was very much an innovation when it was established in 1995 and it still seems to be unique among Parliaments in the world. However, as the House of Commons Commission report makes clear, Elizabeth Filkin's work has validated the position of commissioner.
The commissioner's role is a difficult one to carry out. The position was not recommended by the Nolan report, which suggested a separate investigator and adjudicator. When Lord Neill wrote to the Chairman of the Committee a couple of years ago, he said:
"It is a fundamental principle of procedural fairness that the functions of 'investigator' and 'adjudicator' should be carried out independently".
By combining the two roles, we have imposed a heavy burden on the two commissioners who have held the post and we shall impose such a burden on the new appointee. There are various reasons why the concept of an investigating judge has been abandoned in continental countries, but the fact that such judges combine the two roles is one of them.
250
I want to look forward. I congratulate Mr. Mawer on his appointment. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) outlined Mr. Mawer's qualities and my hon. Friend's remarks were endorsed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I am sure that Mr. Mawer will be a splendid appointment.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the commissioner's remit, but I want to deal with that point in a slightly different way. I wish to refer to the procedures to which the commissioner should adhere.
The first stage, of course, is the receipt of a complaint. There is no need for me to tell the House that the process is used by political opponents outside to air grievances, and by journalists searching for a story. In a previous debate, I implored hon. Members—including Labour Members—not to use the process simply for political advantage. I associate myself completely with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), and with the intervention made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, on that point. Short-term political benefit can be gained by using the process, but the corrosive effects on the standing of the House are too great a danger in the long run.
Last year, the Standards and Privileges Committee's fifth report contained the assertion that it was a basic courtesy that any hon. Member making a complaint to the commissioner about another hon. Member should send a letter to the hon. Member concerned. Unfortunately, that is still not being done. If it were, it might be some deterrent to hon. Members who want to advance complaints against other hon. Members.
Even if we could choke off political expediency in this place, people outside would still use the process as a pretext to attack hon. Members. Mr. Mawer, the new commissioner, will need to adopt a robust approach to that. He will need to dispose quickly of complaints that are trivial, and of allegations that clearly do not require investigation.
The guide to the rules sets out clearly the rudiments of the process. Complaints must not be anonymous, they must be supported by evidence, and they will not normally be taken up if they are founded simply on a story in the media. If there is evidence, the commissioner has to ask the hon. Member involved to respond, and conduct a preliminary investigation. If there is no prima facie case to answer, that should be the end of the matter.
The present commissioner, Mrs. Filkin, has fleshed out those procedural points in a helpful document attached to the Committee's ninth report. Trivial complaints, or complaints that appear to have nothing to them, must be dealt with quickly and robustly. That calls for strength of character and judgment. From what has been said, it seems that Mr. Mawer has both qualities.
In its sixth report on standards in public life, the Neill committee endorsed an approach that resulted in the commissioner robustly dismissing malicious and frivolous complaints. In addition, it went on to suggest that, when an ill founded complaint receives publicity, the commissioner, with the consent of the hon. Member involved, should publicise his judgment. There is great merit in that suggestion, and I hope that the House will be able to debate the matter at some stage.

251
Once an inquiry begins and the thresholds are met, the commissioner must adhere to certain basic principles. They are derived from common law, and are given added force by article 6 of the European convention. Conveniently, they are also set out in the 1999 report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege under Lord Nicholls.
I shall isolate three of those principles. They are that there must be a prompt and clear statement of the precise allegations against the hon. Member, that there must be an adequate opportunity to take advice, and that there must be an opportunity to be heard.
The first principle is perhaps the most important. There is a great danger that an investigation can go off the rails. It is always possible for an investigator to follow a multitude of lines, to range widely over an hon. Member's affairs, and to stray into matters involving third parties for which an hon. Member has no responsibility—all in the hope that something will turn up. The length of any consequent inquiry can be unfair to the hon. Member concerned, as a cloud remains over his or her head for months.
There is therefore a need for focus, to isolate the important and to discard the trivial. The allegation must then be formulated, and put to the hon. Member involved. In most cases, the aim must be to come quickly to a conclusion. There can be no justification for keeping from the hon. Member the nature of the allegation. There is rarely a justification for keeping from the hon. Member involved the evidence on which an allegation is based.
I come now to the standard of proof that the commissioner, Mr. Mawer, must apply. I do not think that there is any controversy about that now. The Nicholls committee said that the standard was the balance of probabilities, but that a higher standard of proof might be appropriate in serious cases. The first commissioner, Sir Gordon Downey, adopted that approach, although he did not use legal terminology. The approach has now been endorsed by the Committee itself. Cogent evidence is needed to support an allegation. Where reputation is involved, especially cogent evidence is needed in the balance.
I shall say a few words about third parties. People associated with hon. Members will be affected by the commissioner's work. Spouses of MPs, for example, know that MPs have to register some of their property interests. Moreover, the commissioner will sometimes need to interview third parties in the course of an inquiry to obtain information. In the end, however, only hon. Members are answerable to the House, and only they are subject to the mandatory jurisdiction of the commissioner.
The corollary of that is that the commissioner has to be sensitive to the position of third parties. For example, spouses may have their own careers. If they are doctors, lawyers, journalists, business people or whatever, they will have duties towards other people. Such duties could include duties of confidentiality, which would mean that they could not assist the commissioner. It is MPs who have duties to this House, not other people. It seems to me that it will be very rare for the commissioner to make adverse comments—let alone reach adverse findings—about third parties in his reports.
252
In some cases, of course, where documentary evidence is not available, the commissioner may have to rely on oral evidence, which may come from third parties. If the commissioner accepted that evidence, no adverse comment would be made. However, if the commissioner did not accept the evidence of third parties, he could avoid making adverse comments in most cases and simply accept the persuasive evidence.
I believe that it is unnecessary in almost all cases to comment adversely on third parties. After all, the commissioner's report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges is protected by parliamentary privilege. That should not be a cloak for adverse comments on third parties in most cases.
Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address the particular problem that can arise when the hon. Member who is the subject of an investigation decides to bring with him a legal representative? That legal representative may feel that his primary duty is to his client. We have found ourselves in some difficult situations when that has happened.
I was a member of the Joint Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. We found that, when hon. Members come before their colleagues and peers in a Committee with legal representation, that can cause difficult problems. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has considerable legal experience, and perhaps he will be able to comment from both points of view.
Ross Cranston: In most cases, hon. Members will not need to consult lawyers. If an hon. Member answers truthfully the questions put by the commissioner, the case will be disposed of easily, without lawyers. However, as the Joint Committee suggested, hon. Members should have the right to go to lawyers if that is what they want. I do not think that that is necessary in the vast majority of cases, but the right should still exist.
I shall speak briefly about privacy. Hon. Members forfeit much of their privacy when they enter public life. For a start, their financial interests have to be registered, but their behaviour is also a matter for constant scrutiny—by other hon. Members, the press, their constituents and the public in general. Anonymity goes by the board in much of their daily lives, but hon. Members should still be entitled to what I would call a zone of privacy, as long as they do not forfeit that right through their behaviour.
Matters that are not relevant to hon. Members' performance in the job include their family, their relationships with parents, their partners and children, their sexual predilections, and—a theme that arose earlier in the debate—their religious beliefs. Hon. Members are entitled to privacy in those and related matters, unless, as I said, they put those matters into the public arena.
Mr. Mawer must respect that zone of privacy. Members are under a duty to co-operate with him: they must answer his questions and provide him with information. The other side of the coin is that the commissioner must respect a Member's privacy. In most instances, of course, this issue is subsumed by my earlier point about relevance. Rarely will those aspects of the zone of privacy, as I have described it, be relevant to an inquiry. Even if they were, the commissioner should hesitate before intruding.
There have been various references to the press. As I have been provoked into saying something about this, my advice to the commissioner would be "Don't talk to

253
the press." My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire took that line. There is no need for the commissioner to confirm or deny that an inquiry is under way. Contacts with the press could lead to allegations of leaking and manipulation. My advice to Mr. Mawer would be "Don't talk to the press. Ultimately, if there is a report, what you say will be public. You stand or fall by that report."
On the statute of limitations, the first commissioner, Sir Gordon Downey, in his valedictory report, said:
"I think there is a risk of a `tit-for-tat' war breaking out in which Members search old records and debates for evidence of possible rule breaches."
He suggested having a seven-year cut-off point. That was endorsed by the Committee in its 19th report, subject to the proviso that the commissioner should be able to go back beyond that point, after consulting the Committee in serious cases. Mr. Mawer should use that seven-year period of limitations. Sir Gordon also alluded to the trawling through of reports and associated documents to launch fresh complaints. As well as a statute of limitations, Mr. Mawer should adopt a fresh evidence rule. It would mean that, if evidence was available at the time of the original inquiry, it should not be used to found a new inquiry.
Too often we fail to recognise how fortunate we are in our public servants. Few countries can match ours in the dedication and integrity of its public servants and the skill and independence of its judiciary. That is not an excuse for complacency; it is not a defence of the status quo. We cannot take our reputation in this House for granted. That is why there is a very heavy burden on the shoulders of the new commissioner. But in our public life there is virtually no major misconduct, and we should be very proud of that.
6.13 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston). I thought that some of his structural points about the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards were very important, although he is totally unrealistic in his view of what is possible with the press.
I agree with the hon. Members for Walsall, North (David Winnick), for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in their analysis of the situation. Some other Members are in a state of denial about what has happened. The House of Commons has, collectively, engaged in the political assassination of its Standards Commissioner—that is what she believes has happened; she believes she has been undermined. She believes that she was a turbulent Standards Commissioner who was got rid of. What is more, the overwhelming majority of the public believe that Elizabeth Filkin is to be no more because she was ferreting out things without fear or favour. Right hon. or hon. Members, on the Front or Back Benches, who do not appreciate how that adds to the cynicism about politics are living in a different political world from me. There is a seam of discontent about the events of the past few months, which may not be widespread in this place because many Members, to their discredit, take very little interest in this.
At business questions, the Leader of the House is fond of dismissing the number of signatories—49—to the early-day motion that the hon. Member for Worthing,
254
West tabled expressing confidence in Mrs. Filkin. Thirty Labour Members of Parliament signed it, as did five Conservatives, nine Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Members, three Liberal Democrats, one independent and one Member of the Social Democratic and Labour party. It did not include the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, so I suspect that the list is not exclusive. Those Members and others feel a deep discontent and anxiety about what has happened to the present Standards Commissioner.
I have never met Elizabeth Filkin; I have never phoned her, had a postcard or sent her a letter. That is probably the best position to be in—it may even be a fortunate position, all things considered, because I have no axe to grind. However, I have read her reports, which have been meticulous and closely argued. They seem to be properly based and I have detected no political axe-grinding in them. Why, given the excellence with which the representative of the House of Commons Commission told us that she had conducted affairs, has it come to pass that she has, in effect, been constructively dismissed? That is what has happened to one of our employees. Members talk in employment debates about employees' rights, legal protection and European statutes, yet one of our most important employees—the one with the most difficult job of all in regulating us—has been undermined in a despicable fashion.
Structural points might lead to such a situation, almost regardless of who is in post; indeed, the better the person employed, the more likely they are to lead to that situation. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch obviously knows Elizabeth Filkin much better than I do. I liked his description of her as being prepared to search for the truth without fear or favour, no matter whose toes she trampled on. Surely that is exactly the sort of person we want in the job.
We have a hybrid system that cannot work. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North referred to separating the investigative role from the adjudication role. We have lumped the two roles together. We then have a second-guess system of self-regulation in the Committee on Standards and Privileges and, possibly, a third-guess system on the Floor of the House.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has issued a report in which she upholds, in meticulous detail, four complaints against a current Minister of the Crown. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has decided today, in six brief paragraphs, to take no action. I do not think that a system in which we appoint an independent Standards Commissioner, or at least one who is meant to be independent and then have a second-guess system of self-regulation, can possibly be sustained. We must go for one or the other. We can adopt an independent system of regulation with a Standards Commissioner reporting, perhaps, to the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. When that idea was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the Leader of the House gave one of his characteristic scoffs. Independent regulation would mean having someone who was genuinely independent and responsible outwith the procedures and processes of this House. If we want self-regulation, we had better understand that it will always be open to the accusation that the Committee matches the make-up of the House, and some people will believe, rightly or wrongly—but, given the events of last

255
few months, probably rightly—that certain people will receive different treatment from certain other people. That will be the perception.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: If one party has been running the show, how does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that every report has been unanimous?
Mr. Salmond: That is not the point I was making, as the hon. Member for Worthing, West, a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, helpfully points out from a sedentary position. We have a system of self-regulation under which the Committee, like all others in this place, is appointed by the usual channels. That leads to the perception that the system of self-regulation is subject to political influences. All these people, regardless of how honourable they are and how diligently they carry out their duties, are none the less politicians regulating other politicians. It is impossible for people wholly to remove themselves from the political process when they are active politicians. In an earlier speech, we were told of an unguarded remark made by a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I do not know whether that is true, but I trust the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. That example shows exactly the failings of any system of self-regulation. Most such systems—wherever in public life they may be—are open to challenge; they are certainly open to considerable scepticism.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made an excellent point about tenure: whoever is appointed, under whatever system, should be appointed for one term only. I suggest that a term of 10 years would be appropriate. There should be no question of reappointment. There would thus be no pressure to reappoint—whether such pressure is perceived or real.
The person should be released from the post due only to complete incompetence or—
Peter Bottomley: Death.
Mr. Salmond: Indeed. Death or taxes: that should be the only way out of the post. Whoever is appointed should be wholly free from any pressure—real or apparent—to obtain a second term, to which they may be subjected or which is suggested by their employers. The confusion over whether the commissioner was being offered a three-day or a five-day week or whether she was to be paid for work that she had done—when someone has, in effect, to apply to get her own job back although there is no good reason for her not to be reappointed—shows how unsatisfactory the position is. A one-term appointment would free the commissioner from any possible pressure.
If the House of Commons Commission and the commissioner continue with their present responsibilities, surely the Speaker should not continue as Chair of the Commission. Some of us have greatly admired the Speaker's independence and the strength of his rulings recently. We believe that he requires support throughout the House—especially from Back Benchers—to uphold those rulings. However, we find ourselves in difficulty in this debate. We are in a debate with the House of
256
Commons Commission, chaired by the Speaker whom we greatly admire but who cannot take part in the debate. It seems completely wrong that the Commission is not properly answerable to the House—through the Chairman or whoever—on decisions that the Commission has or has not made.
I repeat that it is disgraceful that the first real opportunity that we have had to debate what happened to our current commissioner is during our discussion of the appointment of the next standards commissioner. If there were valid complaints about the way in which Mrs. Filkin conducted her duties, they should have been brought to the Floor of the House through the Commission and debated in the open—in the light; they should not have been the subject of a whispering campaign in the dark, demeaning her character and abilities.
I have no knowledge either of Mrs. Filkin or of Mr. Mawer. I am sure that he is a true believer of the Church of England—unlike other people whose views may be more transitional. I am told that the rough house of Church of England politics will have prepared him for his role as Standards Commissioner. I must accept that.
However, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch: Mr. Mawer will suffer from two big disadvantages. The first is that he will be seen as an establishment candidate—as one of the chaps who knows the game and has been brought in as a contrast to his predecessor, who was outside the establishment and thus extremely difficult. Secondly, the circumstances in which Mr. Mawer's predecessor fell will surely overshadow his ability to do his job.
I wish the new commissioner well. I hope that he does well, but he arrives in especially difficult circumstances and, unless they are properly addressed, the same situation may be replayed time after time. If someone does the job too conscientiously, it will seem that they were got rid of because they were inconvenient to people in this place.
I have one more point about the Commission. When hon. Members have raised this issue at business questions—especially the hon. Member for Worthing, West, but also other hon. Members—they have been barracked by the shadow Leader of the House. I have never seen such strength of solidarity and support—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House does not seem to agree. There is something unhealthy about a political system where the Members of the Front Benches were so arm in arm—the Liberals were not much better—about getting rid of that independent regulator—[Interruption.] I certainly was not part of that cosy conspiracy at the Dispatch Box—thank goodness for that.
In summary, Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin has, to use an old-fashioned term, been wronged by this House. Those who did that wrong should be ashamed. They should be ashamed of what they did, but especially of the manner in which they did it. They acted behind the scenes, behind the Chair and in the dark—rather than in full debate and in the light, where the real issues could be addressed.
6.25 pm
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I became a Member of the House nearly five years ago and was enormously honoured to be made a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee almost immediately.
I entered the House with a perception that the whole place was sleaze-ridden. I thought that one had to keep one's hands in one's pocket and to keep hold of one's

257
wallet, whereas in fact this is an amazingly honest place. Across the board, the politicians whom I meet are extremely honest, but very occasionally some of them break the rules.
At present—after the three years during which our commissioner has been in place—people believe that this place is more sleaze-ridden than ever; yet during the past few years, there has been no money in brown envelopes. We have not experienced the problems that occurred in the past. There has been no cash for questions. Certainly, there have been some breaches of the regulations—often technical breaches. In relation to our earlier debate, it is worth noting that both the two substantial offences of which my hon. Friend Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was found guilty—among the 11 with which he was charged—involved regulatory issues that occurred many years ago. That was all. There were, of course, serious matters and the House took the right decision about what should happen to that Member.
However, those issues were not sleaze—at least not according to my definition. My definition of sleaze is when one uses one's public office for private gain. If any hon. Member can think of an example of that during the past few years I should be interested to hear it, because there have been no such cases. The behaviour of hon. Members has indeed been honourable. That is why I am so sad that, as I enter my second term as a Member, my constituents—like those of many hon. Members—believe that we are not honourable and honest. That upsets me.
It upsets me when a public servant gives the impression that we are not honest and honourable. That is why I do not support the reappointment of Elizabeth Filkin. It is not because she lacks integrity: she is one of the women of the greatest integrity whom I have ever met. She is indeed a woman of independence—there is no doubt about that—but the job of the Standards Commissioner is to instil confidence about the House here and in the outside world as well: the outside world must be confident that the commissioner is doing a good job and Members must be confident that they are being treated fairly. If they do not believe that, they will not co-operate with the system. That is the nub of the matter.
Under Sir Gordon Downey, there was no such criticism as we have heard recently. During the first two years of my membership of the Committee, there were differences of opinion with Sir Gordon on some occasions, but the Committee did not disagree with the logic of the commissioner's reports as often as it has done in recent years. That disagreement is regarded as a debit for the Committee, but if the current system is to operate it is surely right that the Committee should not second-guess the arguments and evidence against Members; it should analyse them and consider them judicially.
Let us consider the report that was published this morning in which—as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out—the Committee, yet again, took a different view from the commissioner. The House should study that report and read what the commissioner said. She said that people should account for money that had been properly paid to them—thus, if someone charged a rent, the cash they received would be an improper use of public funds. That so defeats logic that one understands why some Members get upset.
I repeat that I do not doubt Mrs. Filkin's integrity, but I do question her judgment and ability to meet the evidential requirements and thus to reach fair decisions
258
in many cases. With that in mind, the Commission was absolutely right to see whether we could do better. The decision was no more than that. It was not an unfair dismissal, but a decision not to reappoint someone to a post with a fixed-term contract. I have some experience of employment law and, assuming that the contract contained such a provision, failure to reappoint would not constitute unfair or constructive dismissal. None of us has seen that contract, so none of us knows the answer to that question, but that is another issue.
In discussing Mrs. Filkin, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) suggested that we should have a grievance procedure. Happily, we will have such a procedure, because the Employment Bill that the House passed last night provides that it be included in employment contracts as an implied term. Unhappily, the Opposition opposed it, even so, it is an important procedure that should be not merely implied but expressed in the new commissioner's contract. That would avoid many of the problems that we have experienced.
Sir Gordon Downey said just a week or two ago that the behaviour of Members in respect of their interests has improved enormously in the past three or four years. I agree, but I would extend that to the past five years. Why, therefore, does the perception of sleaze and wrongdoing remain? One reason—I am sorry to repeat the point—is the commissioner's readiness in the past three years to take on complaints of little substance.
Of course, we are also at fault, because most complaints are brought by Members against other Members not for quasi-judicial reasons but for political purposes. That is wrong, and when such complaints are found to be spurious, Members should be shown the red card for falsely complaining, rather like soccer players who throw themselves to the ground in the penalty area. There should be some form of sanction when wholly unjustified complaints are made. Having said that, we do not want to discourage people from bringing proper complaints. It is a difficult line to draw.
I agree with those Members who said that self-regulation is a difficult issue, because I am not at all sure that we can ever be trusted by the public. People do not trust us to look after our own affairs.
Moreover, the Select Committee process is perhaps not the best method of self-regulation or any other form of regulation. Although the Select Committee is skilfully managed by a distinguished Chairman, such Committees are an inappropriate substitute for a judicial body. The media will always think ill of Members of Parliament, which is a cross that we must bear. When the commissioner presents a report, it becomes public property, and nothing that the House or its Committees subsequently say is of much value. The press pick up on the commissioner's comments, rather than ours, because they want to think ill of us.
The Select Committee process is the problem. Select Committees' main objective is to reach unanimity, but unanimity is not always justice. They compromise and fudge—in one direction or another—and look for a middle way that is acceptable to everybody, but that does not always mete out justice to a given Member. For that reason, I am not at all certain that that is the best way to proceed.
If we are to proceed with the current system, if we are to look after our own affairs and if we are to instil confidence not only in the public but in Members so that

259
they co-operate and so that there is no repeat of this afternoon's tragedy whereby someone took against the investigator and behaved so wrongly that we had to reach such a decision, we must consider the rules. We need procedural rules that are unambiguous and certain, which, perhaps, is our next task. I agree absolutely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who clearly set out many of the requirements for achieving that objective.
In a nutshell, if we are to operate such a system, allegations must be clearly put, including references to the alleged breach of rules—not simply a letter setting out some generality, but the actual fact and the actual breach, rather like a charge sheet for a Member. That is what is required.
Members must thus be given the evidence on which a complaint is presented so that they can challenge or agree to it as the case may be. They must always have the last word—the opportunity to answer the charge—but I fear that that has not happened over recent years. There has been a fudge, with suggestions being made and considered, and new charges arising part way through the process.
That is not justice. If we want to achieve justice, not only for society, which is most important, but for Members, we must acknowledge that they have rights too. I believe and very much hope that the new commissioner will help us to achieve that objective.
6.36 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of our Committee, who has been extremely skilful in difficult circumstances. I also congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who made most of the points that I wanted to make, but far more eloquently and succinctly than I could. As a result, I shall not keep the House until 10 o'clock, or even later—a motion would allow us to continue beyond that hour—but I must make a number of points.
First, there is a misapprehension in the House and, I believe, in the media, over the way in which the system works. The commissioner's report goes to the Committee, but it is the Committee's report that matters to the House. Hon. Members can obviously read the commissioner's report and then decide whether they think the Committee's report is proper, accurate and fair, but we discuss our report and our decision. That ought to be borne in mind.
People do not understand the process properly, and I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster). I do not believe that natural justice was in some way overthrown in the case to which he referred—not at all. In fact, my opinion remains that the commissioner and the Committee bent over backwards to ensure that our hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) had every opportunity to present his case, produce his solicitors and have opinions from learned counsel. The Shakespearean tragedy of all this is that the person who hanged himself today is my hon. Friend, by virtue of his conduct.
As has been rightly said, of 11 charges, eight were not upheld, two were minor and one represented a slap on the wrist. However, my hon. Friend's attitude, partly to the
260
commissioner, but mostly regarding alleged telephone calls, caused his downfall. I urge colleagues to read the whole report very carefully, if they have time. If they do not, they should read the section on Mapesbury Communications—a company established for the benefit of our colleague of which his mother-in-law and then his mother were secretary. The sole director was his wife. Moneys were used to buy a car for his mother, as company secretary.
Our hon. Friend said that he knew nothing of the workings of that company, and the Committee said, with all charity, that that was a little odd. However, we upheld what the commissioner said because all the evidence on which we could have pursued that matter further had mysteriously disappeared. The charge could not be upheld for lack of evidence, not because there was no trail to follow, as has perhaps been suggested. The trail went cold for lack of evidence.
On the telephone calls, I refer colleagues to the appendix, which contains the full text of the letter from the chief inspector of Leicestershire police. The report contains only part of that letter, which states the serious charges that the police considered they might bring against my hon. Friend. They then decided that he was seeking to undermine our system and therefore that it should be left to us to decide what should happen to him. The charges were very serious indeed.
Although I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North said about third parties, the Committee was scrupulous with regard to third parties in that report. We dealt only with our colleague, not with other individuals about whom we might have formed opinions that we decided not to express. We were dealing with our colleague, not with the third parties. Sometimes, colleagues can drag in third parties in all sorts of ways and their reputations have to be defended—we had to defend some third parties in our report. This is a serious matter. It was most unpleasant sitting in judgment on a colleague.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that he felt the commissioner had been badly treated by the Committee. I have served on the Committee in only this Parliament, and I must say that there were differences of opinion, but there was respect for the commissioner and an understanding of her position in arguing points and reaching decisions. Different conclusions were reached without blazing rows or anything of that nature, and we carefully explained why we disagreed. That is precisely how we reached decisions.
David Winnick: From my hon. Friend's experience of serving on the Committee—limited though it is—does he think that our hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) is in any way correct to suggest that the parliamentary commissioner should lose her job because she has been over-zealous? In his experience, has the parliamentary commissioner done anything that a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should not have done?
Mr. McNamara: I shall come to that in a moment. I shall refer to the allegation that the parliamentary commissioner was badly treated by the Committee, and I shall deal with my attitude towards Mrs. Filkin. I found

261
her to be intellectually hard and very careful in her use of words. She bent over backwards to be fair and to give the benefit of the doubt when she could. In fact, the Committee felt that she had not been hard enough on one occasion, and we reconsidered the evidence on one of the accusations. We upheld her decision not to proceed further on that matter. That is an example of the Committee disagreeing with the commissioner. I found her tough, intellectual and uncompromising in terms of what she felt her proper role involved. The way that the rules were laid down may be criticised, but I felt that she was absolutely straight and upright in upholding them. I found no reason why we should throw stones at her.
On the points that other colleagues have made, when some people knew that I had been appointed to the Committee, they muttered, "Oh, that Filkin woman." How much of that was deliberately stirred up by colleagues who were subject to her inquiries only they know. Some of them may feel that, in some way or another, they have obtained a victory in her dismissal. If they think that, I feel sad for them because they have let down the House of Commons.
The parliamentary commissioner had an almost impossible job—she had to police the standards and ensure that they were upheld by some of the most self-opinionated people in the country, barring only the members of the senior judiciary. I thought that she carried out her task remarkably well, but I know that there were those mutterings and explosions. Some colleagues said that other colleagues were badly treated when they had not even read the reports or looked at the evidence on which the decisions were made. That is a criticism of us, not of the commissioner. I hope that her new job is as challenging, but that she has more support and understanding than she has achieved here.
I want to turn to the role of the House of Commons Commission. It did not completely follow the rules on establishing such posts, as laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and it came in late. Only later did the Commission involve the Chairman of the Committee. Although I accept that all hon. Members are equal in such matters, we, as members of the Committee, are more closely and intimately affected than others. However, at no time did the Commission officially—or even unofficially, so far as I know—approach the Committee to ask for our impression of the way in which the parliamentary commissioner was undertaking her role. Given what has been said this evening, hon. Members know that opinions would have differed. The least that the Commission could have done was to approach the Committee and ask, "What do you think of the commissioner's behaviour?" That was not done, and that important matter has to be examined by the Commission in future.
The fact that the Committee was not shown two audited reports on the work of the commissioner and her office—even now it has not been shown those reports—delayed things until after the recommendation to appoint the new commissioner and the virtual dismissal of the current one. The Commission behaved disgracefully in not letting the Committee know what was going on and what the problems were. I presume that it did not want us to see those reports because they showed that the commissioner was overworked and doing a good job, as were her staff. That is absolutely disgraceful.
262
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) referred to tenure. One of the tasks that the House has given me is membership of our delegation to the Council of Europe. I am the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee—European matters are all very complicated—that recommends to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe whom we think it should elect, from a list of three people submitted by countries, to be a member of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. It is in some ways one of the most onerous jobs that I have had in my life. Although those judges were originally part-time, they were appointed for a nine-year term. With the reorganisation of the court a few years ago, they were appointed for fixed terms. Under the new system, half of them, chosen by lot, will retire after three years to be replaced by others for successive six-year terms.
That system seems extremely fair, but we found some shortcomings. First, we found that in some cases, sitting judges were not reappointed, or not included on their country's shortlist, for a variety of reasons. It might have been for political reasons, because they had given or supported judgments that the home country did not like, or because their face did not fit, although they were competent judges. There was interference in that way, as there might have been on the matter that we are discussing tonight.
Secondly, we noted that some of the judges who were coming up for re-selection found it necessary to spend time at home, ensuring that their colleagues there appreciated the need for them to be on the bench in Strasbourg. To many people with judicial minds—like politicians' minds—what happened yesterday is quickly forgotten, and the judges had to remind their colleagues of who they were and why they were there.
The system was unsatisfactory. There were threats to the independence of the judges. Judges were in danger of corrupting themselves in the way that they went about seeking re-selection, and the factors influencing re-selection meant that the system did not work efficiently, which was a problem.
We shall be in a much better position if we appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for a period of, let us say, nine or 10 years, knowing that they will not be reappointed at the end of the term, knowing that they will be independent, and knowing that the means exist to get rid of them if they shoot their wife or run off with the Treasury—lalthough they will not get away with much gold if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps going on in the way that he is. In other words, the commissioner could be got rid of for malfeasance, but not for making unpopular judgments or for ruffling the defendant. We would be in a much better position if we adopted that arrangement; for starters, we would not have debates such as this so frequently.
If we take that course, we shall know when the commissioner is due to leave office, and we should be able to appoint a new one well enough in advance to enable them to learn the ropes before assuming the post. At present, the newly appointed commissioner is supposed to attend for perhaps one day a week for the first month, and after that perhaps two days a week, then perhaps three days a week and then—if he finds the job as difficult as it is—four or five days a week. However, given the work load that the Audit Commission found,

263
it is nonsensical to appoint someone who has to wind up his present contract, fine, splendid, pure, upright and hardworking as the man is. I do not know the gentleman and I wish him well in his job, but I believe that we could think about some of these matters more seriously.
I shall now mention legal advice. I sometimes wonder to what degree legal advice and opinions from learned counsel are introduced deliberately to waste time—to produce red herrings or further matters to be investigated, just in case the Committee could be accused of being unfair. Colleagues obviously must have that right but, in their own interests, it should be used sparingly.
Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that we should advise people to look at the report that was published today, in which the Member facing a complaint spoke to the commissioner and sorted things out? The commissioner thought that there was no need to go any further. There were further complaints; they were looked at. A report came to the Committee. I would argue that the Committee, by my reading—it is an agreed report, although what it says may not be agreed—agreed with the commissioner, in a sense, on three of the main issues, but also agreed that no further action was needed. In that case, legal advice did not come in. The whole process took very little time. It has been fair and open, and that surely is the best advice to others.
Mr. McNamara: Oh yes. I agree with that entirely.
The last point that I want to address is the strange description of "rough-hewn", which I think was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney—
Mr. Sedgemore: Hackney marshes.
Mr. McNamara: I must say that I found that rather a strange phrase to use about the elegant commissioner that we have at present. If it meant that she was tough-minded and would stand no nonsense, I would accept that, but I always found her—in my dealings with her and from observing her with other members of the Committee—ever courteous, ever helpful, ever prepared to listen, and ever ready to argue her point, but willing to concede gracefully when the Committee decided differently.
6.55 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I declare an interest, in that I was for some time a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I am a member of the House of Commons Commission and I was a member of the board that conducted the preliminary interviews for the position that the House is considering. In that sense, I am in this up to my eyeballs. The House should be aware of that, and can take account of it in respect of anything that I might now say.
Having said that, I have no hesitation in recommending Mr. Philip Mawer to the House because I had the privilege of being involved in interviewing him, among many other people of very high quality, not just once but twice. My view was—happily, this was the way that events turned out—that he was the best qualified of a very high-quality field of candidates.
264
It partly answers some of what was said in the debate that, when the post was advertised, there was no lack of high-quality applicants who, although they knew the context, still came forward because they felt that the role was challenging and demanding, because they had a sense of duty and because they wanted to play their part in maintaining the reputation of the parliamentary process and of the House. The House can therefore feel confident that this candidate will serve it extremely well if, as I hope, we agree to his appointment.
However, we must recognize—it was made clear to Mr. Mawer, as it was to the other candidates—that the position of commissioner is not an easy one, as became patently obvious during the debate. There has been no attempt to conceal it. We all know, not least from the debate, that the commissioner has to maintain a relationship with the Standards and Privileges Committee, of course; with the House of Commons Commission, although that relationship is, of necessity and rightly, much diminished after the appointment; with Mr. Speaker, of course, because of his position in the House; and with the Clerk of the House under some circumstances. I addition to all that, the commissioner must have a relationship with 655 Members of Parliament.
Peter Bottomley: What about the other four?
Mr. Forth: I thought that some clever colleague would ask me about the other four. I deliberately excluded Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. Strictly speaking, I perhaps should not have but I would be crazy not to in this circumstance. My point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that maintaining a relationship with the entirety of the membership of the House is a key part of the job and responsibility of the commissioner, and one of the most difficult parts. It is on that ground, among others, that we must satisfy ourselves. Worse, the commissioner then has to maintain independence and integrity and at the same time be a servant of the House. That is a very difficult duty to maintain with credibility.
I am confident, however, that Mr. Philip Mawer has the experience and the capability to fulfil those very demanding requirements and maintain the confidence of Members and the public at large. I believe that he is fully capable of doing so and I commend him to the House.
6.59 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The House will be aware that I have put my name to the motion. At the risk of scandalising the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I fully support what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in commending Mr. Mawer.
The House was fortunate to have a good field of candidates for the post. When it was advertised, some members of the press said that no one of calibre would apply. Indeed, one feature writer who said that himself went on to apply. The press were wholly wrong, as they so often are. The candidates were drawn from a wide field. I think that I speak for the Commission when I say that any of the three on the final short list could do the job with distinction and success. It is an even greater tribute to Mr. Mawer that he was successful in such a strong field.
It is also a tribute to Mr. Mawer that no hon. Member who regretted the departure of Mrs. Filkin expressed regret at the arrival of Philip Mawer. The hon. Member

265
for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) spoke highly of him. On that point at least we can agree. I cannot promise to rise to the hagiography that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) accorded Mrs. Filkin, but Mr. Mawer certainly has the qualities of integrity, impartiality, tenacity and discretion that are needed for the job.
I defer to my hon. Friend for his superior knowledge of the Church of England, but from my study of 19th century literature I believe that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is correct in saying that the Church is not without politics and intrigue. Handling the senior post that Mr. Mawer occupied must have required tact, skill and toughness. He also served with distinction at the Home Office where he undertook tough and demanding tasks, such as acting as the secretary and writer of the Scarman report on the Brixton riots. I am confident that he brings to the post the qualities that we need and experience that has prepared him for the role of commissioner.
It is important to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said: the process of appointment was scrupulous. In the early stages, we sought the advice and support of one of my predecessors, Lord Newton, and Sir Gordon Downey, a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Throughout all stages of the process, we were observed by an independent assessor, Mrs. Sheila Drew-Smith, who was appointed by the Commission for Public Appointments. She also attended the final hearing, at the end of which she said—I wrote down her comment—that the process had been as robust as we can make it. The Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee joined us as a full voting member when we made the final choice from the shortlist of three, and he fully supported our choice at the end of the hearing. No matter what other opinions hon. Members may have, it is not possible to fault the process by which we produced the man who I believe is an excellent candidate for the post.
The arrival of the new commissioner is an opportunity for us all to look to the future of the system and the way in which the post's duties are carried out.
Mr. Salmond: No one suggested that the process of appointment of the new commissioner was not scrupulous. Some hon. Members suggested, however, that the effective removal of the previous commissioner was less than scrupulous. Having heard the views expressed in the debate, does the Leader of the House regret anything that he has or has not done as part of his role in the House of Commons Commission in the past few months, given the circumstances under which Elizabeth Filkin left office?
Mr. Cook: Not in the slightest. I have done nothing of which to be ashamed, nothing that I am not prepared to defend, and nothing that I have any cause to regret. I believe that Mr. Mawer will command the confidence of the House. In a year or two, we will look back on what we did tonight and regard it as the correct decision.
David Winnick: Would it not have been better for the House of Commons Commission to initiate a debate on why Elizabeth Filkin was not to have her contract renewed? This debate is about the new appointment, and
266
we all wish Mr. Mawer well, but many of us are clearly unhappy about the way in which Mrs. Filkin is leaving our service.
Mr. Cook: Let us be clear about this: Mrs. Filkin is leaving our service because she chose not to put herself forward in open competition for the post. Throughout the process, I have been careful to ensure that my appreciation of her qualities is placed on the record. It is strange that those who purport to be her champions are the ones who keep pressing for a debate to explore her merits for the post. I am content to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said. I commend Mrs. Filkin for her assiduity, determination and meticulousness and, with those words, the House should draw a line under the matter.
There are aspects of the system that the House should consider for the future, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston). Hon. Members require protection against the malicious representation of them being under investigation even when there is nothing of substance to investigate. Their reputation is important not just to their political careers, but to their standing in their community. We must not expose them to the meretricious publicity of being under investigation when no inquiry has been launched or is likely to produce a substantial result.
As Leader of the House, I would welcome the Standards and Privileges Committee's considering how to give greater clarity to the distinction between a complaint having been made and an investigation having been launched. I was much attracted to the formula that Sir Gordon Downey articulated on the radio last year. He said that he never initiated an investigation until he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case to be answered. Until we reach that stage, all Members are entitled to privacy and protection against fabricated claims that they are under investigation because of complaints without substance.
Peter Bottomley: One of the advantages of the system that the House instituted by establishing the commissioner and the Standards and Privileges Committee is that we can now take matters further. Newspaper used to attack a Member who had no way in which to get the claim investigated. We should remember that such a case would have received publicity anyway. Having a commissioner who looks into an allegation and who does not take an investigation further gives a Member greater protection than not having the system at all.
Mr. Cook: I am not suggesting that we dismantle the system, but we should protect ourselves against malicious complaints that result in headlines that a Member is under investigation. We can protect ourselves against that without dismantling the system.
Our system of self-regulation has been criticised. It is important that we restore public faith and confidence in it. Today we accepted a report by the Standards and Privileges Committee. We debated the report promptly and expeditiously, and its findings were accepted unanimously. The vigour, severity and unanimity with which we carry through the process of self-regulation compares favourably with other cases of self-regulation.

267
We are more likely to pursue our self-regulation with greater rigour and with the unanimous support of our Members than, possibly, the press do with the Press Complaints Commission.
This is Ash Wednesday and an appropriate day on which to approach the debate in a spirit of penitence and critical self-examination. It is vital that we have robust and frank procedures to call to account those Members who let down the standards of the House. We also should ensure that we and, if possible, the press retain a sense of proportion. As Leader of the House, I am distressed that the occasional lapse by a few Members is sometimes written up as if it is representative of the House as a whole. That is false. Most complaints to the Standards and Privileges Committee are not upheld. Most hon. Members come to the House with a genuine commitment to serve their constituents and their political beliefs. Some of those beliefs are entirely wrong-headed, but I respect the sincerity and integrity with which all hon. Members bring their beliefs and commitment to the House. In my view, the House is as clean as any other representative parliamentary democracy. We should not be ashamed of saying so and should take every possible step to ensure that our systems advertise that to our public, our constituents and even to our press. That is why it is of the greatest importance that we have in place mechanisms to maintain our standards and enforce our code of conduct.
I believe that Mr. Mawer will win the confidence of the House for his discretion. Even more important, I believe that he will win the confidence of the public that he will conduct his job with vigour and without fear of, or favour to, any Member. Since becoming Leader, I have frequently said to the House that I believe in the scrutiny of Government because good scrutiny makes for good Government. I believe also that good scrutiny of standards makes for a good Parliament. I believe that Mr. Mawer will be a good scrutineer, and in that spirit I commend him to the House.
7.10 pm
Mr. Bell: I should like to make a few points about the debate.
First, I want to answer a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about Elizabeth Filkin's extra day's work. I have been informed by the Director of Finance and Administration that arrangements have been made to pay Mrs. Filkin for all the days that she has worked and for annual leave that she has not taken. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's question.
It seems a long time since we heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). He said that he thought that Sir Nigel Wicks and his committee ought to review the commissioner's role or his appointment. We welcome any inquiries made by Sir Nigel Wicks and his review of the procedures of the House. I simply add that the House is master and mistress of its own affairs, and it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to alter the present status.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the duties that the new nominee will have if he is appointed. He spoke of linesmen and referees. I simply say that if Mr. Mawer is appointed by the House tonight, he expects to begin work
268
from the beginning of March. Initially, this will be for one or two days a week, since the House will understand that it will take him a little while to relinquish all his present responsibilities, but he will increase his commitment as quickly as he can. Strictly speaking, Mr. Mawer should have given six months' notice to the Church of England, but recognising the importance of this role, the Church is allowing him to leave sooner. Mr. Mawer therefore expects to work up to three days a week by May. He has said:
"I will do what the job requires and adjust my working life accordingly".
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) made a very eloquent declaration of the merits and qualities of Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin. I have to repeat what has been said by other members of the Commission and by right hon. and hon. Members of the House: the Commission has valued Mrs. Filkin's work and regrets that she did not take the opportunity to apply to be considered for a second term. The nomination report records the Commission's appreciation
"of Ms Filkin's dedication to the work of the House"
and notes:
"She has successfully brought a number of complex inquiries to a conclusion."
We also believe that her work has validated the system of parliamentary self-regulation established following the recommendations of the first Nolan report.
Much has been made of the press and its contacts and relationships. The new commissioner, like all Officers of the House and like his predecessor, is subject to a general requirement to maintain confidentiality. Given the nature of the position, the commissioner will need to agree with the Standards and Privileges Committee what contact he has with the media, but there is no question whatsoever of gagging Mr. Mawer. Indeed, should the House approve his appointment today, I am sure that he would be ready to talk to the press tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) made an interesting, intriguing and delightful speech, as always. I can only paraphrase Voltaire and say that I do not agree with what he said, but I would defend to the death his right to say it. The Commission and the House welcome his warm words for Philip Mawer in his early-day motion. I have read in the press—it may be malicious gossip—that the hon. Gentleman intends to resign from the Standards and Privileges Committee. I can only give him the advice of Lord Beaverbrook: "Never resign. Wait until you're sacked." Since no one is likely to sack the hon. Gentleman from that role, I urge him to stay where he is and to give Philip Mawer positive advice. I know that Mr. Mawer would welcome that.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who was a member of the Commission for some time, as she said, asked about the accountability of the commissioner. The Speaker and the Clerk of the House will have general management and oversight of the commissioner, but under Standing Order No. 149, it is for the Standards and Privileges Committee to oversee the commissioner's work. No doubt that role will fall on the gentleman sitting next to her, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The hon. Lady made great play of what the commissioner's contract would say. If the House approves the motion, Philip Mawer will sign a detailed contract, which covers

269
dealings with the media and all the other matters to which she referred. It contains written arrangements for dealing with problems and grievances that may arise. I hope that I have answered sufficiently the points that she made.
I come to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and his articles in Tribune. I have to tell him that I preferred him when he was playing cricket for Tribune rather than writing his articles. I know that he has probably given up the cricket, but he has not yet given up his articles.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made an eloquent speech, as we would expect. Like me, he knows Philip Mawer from a long time back. He is right in his assessment of Mr. Mawer's character and qualities. He said that he thought that there should be a long-term commissioner, and no doubt that point will be taken up in the weeks, months and years to come.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made a positive contribution, which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) summed up nicely when he said that it related to structural arguments. It was a fine, thoughtful speech, and one that we ought to take into account as we constantly review our proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) made a refreshing speech. It was a minority speech, and it takes a lot to be the only one in step, especially in the House of Commons, but he made powerful arguments. Of course, the public do not think very highly of MPs and their standards, but since 1974 we have been on a par with estate agents. I do not want to disparage estate agents, but we have never quite lifted ourselves from that level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, who made an eloquent speech, brought the debate to a close. He has a different element of faith from some of us. He knows that I, a Protestant, have a Catholic wife, and so we go to a Catholic church as well as to a Protestant one. For Philip Mawer to have the full support of Catholics and Protestants, and for him to be nominated on Ash Wednesday, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, would be worthy of the House, of the Commission and of Mr. Mawer, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Philip John Courtney Mawer be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 598, dated 6th February.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
Ordered,
That Sir Patrick Cormack be appointed a member of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Orders of the Day
  British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]
    Clause 8

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      7.18 pm
      Peter Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 28, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
      The amendment will be no surprise to the Minister because I raised the substance of it in meetings with him, in several interventions and in my own speech in the course of the Second Reading debate and, more recently, in a parliamentary question. Indeed, I gave notice of it to his Department. The amendment's purpose is very simple: to ensure that there is no delay in implementing the Bill, which Members on both sides of the House greatly welcome, once it has been passed. The central reason for that is to ensure that the people of St. Helena can celebrate their 500th anniversary as the British citizens that they thought they were, at least until 1981.
      Nothing in the Bill suggests that citizenship rights must be dependent on the issuing of a passport—indeed, such a suggestion would be absurd because, as I pointed out on Second Reading, passports may confirm but certainly do not confer citizenship. A passport is not and never has been regarded as a prerequisite for citizenship. Even if the Bill is passed without a concession or the amendment being made, many people in St. Helena and the other British overseas territories, just like people in this country, will enjoy their citizenship and the rights that accompany it without ever applying for, possessing, needing or using a passport.
      I accept that it would be administratively tidier to resolve the questions surrounding the design, printing and issuing of passports before citizenship is confirmed: those who have long waited to have their rights restored would simply have to wait a little longer. However, there are two important matters that I wish to draw to the attention of the House and especially my hon. Friend the Minister.
      The first was raised with me yesterday by the representative in London of the St. Helena Government, and has been raised before by other hon. Members. It relates to those whose work permits will expire between Royal Assent being given to the Bill and the commencement of its provisions. Are we really going to require such people to leave the country to reapply for an extension of their visa and their work permit? I hope that the Minister can give some comfort on that point.
      The second issue is of central importance to me and to the people of St. Helena. As I said, this year they celebrate the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the island by the Portuguese. The anniversary falls on 21 May, and the event is of huge significance to the Saints. No people were more affronted or more disadvantaged by the loss of their citizenship rights than the Saints. They believed that they held those rights in perpetuity, not least because of the royal charter conferred on them in the 17th century by Charles II. No people were more delighted by the

      271
      Government's welcome commitment in the White Paper and, subsequently, the Bill to the restoration of their rights.
      I cannot imagine that the Government do not recognise the importance of this anniversary to the Saints, nor that the Minister does not acknowledge both the cause for rejoicing that the restoration of their rights would represent, or the dismay that its further delay would cause. I seek an assurance that the administrative difficulties with issuing passports mentioned at various stages of the Bill's passage can be resolved, and that commencement can take place before 21 May. If such an assurance is given, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. Alternatively, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide a different sort of reassurance: that commencement will not be linked to the issuing of passports. In either event, the people of St. Helena and of other British overseas territories, will have their citizenship rights restored before that important date.
      The matter may not be of great moment to many people. It may not be of great importance to Foreign Office and Home Office officials in Whitehall, but it is of huge symbolic value to the Saints. I appeal to the Minister to exercise his discretion to ensure that 21 May is a red letter day for the Saints. I urge him not to be a party-pooper but to ensure that 21 May in St. Helena, if not Bradley day, is Bradshaw day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, if creeping will secure the concession, I am only too happy to do it on behalf of the Saints. I hope that he will take the opportunity to give full expression to the intention of legislation for which the Government deserve credit, and which would be the subject of celebration in St. Helena.
      Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on his amendment, and on the spirit of the argument that he has expressed this evening. He speaks for everyone with a love for and an association with the island of St. Helena in voicing the dear wish that by 21 May the citizenship of its people will have been restored. That citizenship was removed against their wishes. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's arguments and invite the Minister to assure the House that, come the 500th anniversary celebrations, the people of the island of St. Helena will have had their citizenship restored so that they can celebrate as all of us want them to.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I can imagine almost nothing worse than being labelled a party-pooper, so I hope to be able to say something that will send my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) away happy.
      We appreciate and share hon. Members' desire that the people of St. Helena should be able to celebrate their quincentenary on 21 May as British citizens. Our concern is that the amendment would do more to get in the way of achieving that goal than to achieve it. Were the amendment accepted, it would have consequences for those provisions of the Bill relating to the acquisition of British citizenship after commencement. That would require a further Government amendment to correct, which would delay the Bill's passage.
      272
      Let me explain why it is necessary to have a gap, albeit a very small one, between Royal Assent and commencement. It is because many fairly complicated administrative arrangements have to be put in place to allow citizens of British dependent territories, as they are now, to obtain proof of their new status on commencement. As my hon. Friend says, that proof will, in most cases, take the form of a new passport showing their new British status.
      To issue passports, we need to make practical arrangements, including agreeing the format with the overseas territories. That has not been easy. Although many in the House have been waiting a long time for the Bill, many in the overseas territories are surprised at the speed with which it has proceeded through Parliament. Some had concerns about the appearance of their passports, and time is needed to train the staff involved.
      We have every confidence that the practical arrangements will be in place to allow a commencement date well before St. Helena's quincentenary on 21 May, but—my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin should pay attention to this—in the unlikely event that the passport issuing arrangements are not in place by mid-May, we would make an order specifying 21 May as the commencement date.
      The Home Office has been extremely kind and agreed that if we do that, it will make exceptional arrangements to allow immediate exercise of the new rights. Those arrangements would allow those who hold British dependent territory citizenship passports derived from a connection with a territory other than the sovereign bases in Cyprus to use those passports as evidence of the right of abode in this country until such time as a full British citizen passport becomes available to them.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the issue relating to work permits is one for the Home Office. However, I shall take it up with my colleagues in that Department and hope that they will be as flexible in interpreting the law as they have been about accepting BDTC passports in lieu of British citizen passports. In the light of those arrangements, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
      Simon Hughes: I was listening carefully to the Minister and hoped to intervene before he sat down. Will he deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) about the principle that a passport is not needed to establish a person's eligibility for citizenship? The hon. Gentleman made the important point that some people may not need or seek a passport. It would be reassuring to people from St. Helena and the other territories if the Minister put it on the record that, although an expedited procedure for passport acquisition will be put in place, for which we are grateful, the citizenship rights of those who have no passport and do not want to apply for one will be confirmed by 21 May at the latest, or by some earlier date if the procedures are completed. That is the other assurance sought by the hon. Gentleman.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Bradshaw: Yes to both of those.
      Peter Bradley: There is no need for me to detain the House a great deal longer. I would be the most unpopular person in Westminster if I did, since we are probably going home early tonight.

      273
      I pay tribute to the Minister and those who advise him. If government were always so simple and it was always so simple to do the common-sense thing, we would probably all be out of a job. The news will be greeted, I am sure, with great approbation in St. Helena and by those in this country who have supported their cause over many years. This is a very good Bill, whose consideration has reached a happy conclusion in the House. I thank the Minister again, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.31pm
      Mr. Bradshaw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I have listened with interest to the points made on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Nationality is a fascinating and emotive subject. The Bill may be short, specific and contain few clauses, but the debate surrounding it has opened windows on different aspects of life in territories with close and long-established cultural and traditional links with the United Kingdom, but which are geographically far removed from these shores, and in some cases isolated.
      The passage of the Bill will mean that British dependent territories citizens will be full British citizens. They will be able to apply for British passports, to live, study and work in the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union, and to share the benefits of British citizenship that we all take for granted.
      I have noted with pleasure that the Bill commands widespread support in the Chamber, and I am extremely grateful to the many right hon. and hon. Members who have welcomed its introduction and spoken in favour of its speedy and successful passage. I know that for many people in the overseas territories, Royal Assent and commencement cannot, as we have just discussed, come quickly enough. I hope that commencement will be very soon after Royal Assent.
      The Bill was first introduced in another place in June last year. It came to this House after thorough and wide-ranging debate, but without amendment. It has provided opportunities for hon. Members to raise a number of issues—not always central to the Bill—about the overseas territories, and in the process it has raised the profile of the territories themselves.
      This was always a good Bill, but the amendment in favour of the Ilois, agreed in Committee, means that the Bill leaves us even stronger. I commend it to the House.
      7.33 pm
      Mr. Richard Spring: We welcome the Bill, as we have throughout its progress through the House. It contains many important and positive aspects, and my party strongly supports its aims.
      The legislation is of great importance to the citizens of the 16 British overseas territories, which include Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, British Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos Islands and South Georgia. The legislation enjoys their full support and, as always in this House, we should pay
      274
      great attention to the views of the people directly affected by it. Our relationships with those territories are multi-faceted and valued by all concerned.
      Hon. Members will be aware of questions surrounding an airstrip on the island of St. Helena. The issue has been raised on a number of occasions, particularly in another place by the Earl of Iveagh, a constituent of mine. I am glad that it has been aired. In making decisions on such issues, we of course bear in mind the economic development of the area. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) has sought to raise the profile of the island, and we are all grateful to him for doing so.
      The Bill is about granting British citizenship to the citizens of our overseas territories, recognising our partnership with them and giving them proper and accorded status.
      I am grateful to the Minister for the clarifications that he has offered on Second Reading and in Committee on various areas of concern. I am pleased that he has clarified the status of abandoned infants under the Bill, making it clear that citizenship granted to an abandoned infant will not be grounds for any parent or guardian who subsequently comes forward to claim it.
      I am also grateful to the Minister for clarifying European Union citizenship rules as they relate to the Bill. As I understand his answers, the EU's regulations extend to territories, not to people. Therefore, citizenship regulations would apply only if a British overseas citizen who became a British citizen took up abode in the UK. That is welcome news.
      There are still, however, one or two areas that we would note for future reference. One is the question of overseas fees for higher education—a matter that has been brought to the attention of the House before. It is understood how the rules work; it has become something of an EU matter. However, I should like to take this opportunity to say that the such education has a knock-on effect. It impacts on the lives of a number of young people who are able to study in this country and then return home with the knowledge that they have acquired. Such education also establishes great links with this country and most particularly benefits students' respective homelands.
      The education of such young people is a tremendous investment, not only for those involved but in establishing the affection and ties that inevitably arise when part of one's education is in this country. We must continue to bear that in mind and to monitor it.
      Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is widespread support for that point of view. Many of us who represent universities and others hope that the necessary cross-departmental efforts can bring about the change that he has advocated and that many of us want. That will be very important and another sign of our support for the next generation of people in overseas territories.
      Mr. Spring: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's message, which I am sure the Minister will have taken on board.
      I am pleased that EU citizenship regulations, as they relate to the Bill, have been clarified. The relationship of the overseas territories with the EU and general nationality rules continue to be important. I truly hope that the Government will keep a wary eye on that.

      275
      I reiterate my party's full support for the amendments made in Committee, as I did during those proceedings. I once again pay tribute to the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the issue of the Chagos islanders. The injustice was insufficiently recognised in the House, and hon. Members will be grateful to both hon. Gentlemen for drawing the matter to their attention in a compelling way. I hope very much that the right of return of the islanders, as recognised in a recent High Court case, will be clarified further and that the process will be taken on accordingly.
      Overall, this is a very important, welcome and much supported Bill. It works towards a partnership, as the White Paper desired, and demonstrates our commitment to the citizens of British overseas territories, wherever they May be. Once again, I commend the work that has been done on the Bill and the Minister's courtesy while navigating its passage through the House and clarifying its clauses. We fully support the Bill's objectives and welcome its Third Reading.
      7.38 pm
      Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for his kind remarks about the Chagos islanders and the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have raised the matter in the House. I understand that the Minister is suffering some discomfort, so I shall be as brief as possible. So that he can get away, I shall not ask any complicated questions.
      I enjoyed serving on the Committee that considered the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for sending me a lengthy and full answer to my interminable questions on the role of Antarctica in the Bill. Particularly since nobody lives there, it was very helpful of him to discuss at smile length the possible citizenship of people who might at some point live there—apart from if they are in some terrible Channel 4 programme and are stuck there. That could be a good idea. I am grateful to the Minister for that. I am not sure that I wholly agree with him on the Antarctic, but I promise not to discuss it further this evening, save to say that I have a whole box of papers on Antarctica from the time that I have been in the House. The former right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I raised the matter during consideration of the Antarctic Minerals Bill and at other times.
      I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk about the right of access to further and higher education in this country for overseas citizens. I do not pretend that there is any simple, logical answer, but some way should be found for us to ensure that people who, after all, will be given British citizenship as soon as the Bill is enacted, should have access to higher education institutions in Britain. That seems proper and sensible, and I hope that some Means can be found to achieve it.
      I welcome the amendments that the Minister moved in Committee—I subsequently withdrew mine—concerning the British Indian Ocean Territories, the Ilois people and their right of access to citizenship. As my hon. Friend well understands, there is a good deal of resentment among the Ilois People about the way in which they were removed from the islands by secret interstate negotiations in the 1960s and 1970s, and deposited on Mauritius or, in the case Of some, on the Seychelles, given minimum compensation and forgotten about.
      276
      Once again, we should reiterate our thanks to Olivier Bancoult and all who have campaigned so successfully and so well for so long, culminating finally in a successful High Court action which allowed the Ilois the right of return to the Chagos islands. That is an important step forward and has been warmly welcomed.
      However, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that the right of return has been authorised by the High Court in this country. There is the possibility of a class action being taken in the United States on behalf of those who were moved from Diego Garcia, which is currently a US base, and that to date no Chagosians have been allowed to return to the islands. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is sponsoring an environmental impact study and a study of the economic viability of a return to the islands. We look forward to the results of those studies.
      Just before Christmas, I took part in a lengthy and useful meeting with Baroness Amos in the Foreign Office with Olivier Bancoult, Richard Gifford, his solicitor, and a small delegation. We discussed all these issues. It is strange that the Chagos islanders—the Ilois people—are not allowed to return to the islands, yet I understand that the British Indian Ocean Territories police do nothing about passing millionaire yachtsmen drawing up their yachts alongside the outer islands of the archipelago and staying there for a considerable time without being told to move on.
      Any Chagos islander trying to go back gets stopped by fishery protection vessels on their way to the islands. There seems to be something wrong there. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) says, there could be a bit of class politics going on. Although such notions are not supposed to be popular among those on the Government Benches, some of us still understand them—[Interruption.]—and even practise them.
      I do not ask the Minister to respond immediately, but I hope that he will look into the matter. Will he also assure me that when the assessments are complete and we have a meeting with Baroness Amos in April, when Olivier Bancoult is returning to the UK, we will be able to discuss the practicalities of returning to the archipelago as a whole, the support that will be given to the community to do that, the employment practices of the United States on the base, and importantly, the opportunity for the islanders to visit the islands, to visit their burial sites and their ancestral homes, and to see the place from which their parents grandparents were so brutally plucked away in the 1970s?
      I hope that my hon. Friend can ensure that the British Indian Ocean Territories authority will arrange for that return to take place, initially as a visit, and that when we finally have our meeting in April with Baroness Amos, which I hope to attend, we can explore the practicalities of return.
      My final point relates to the islanders themselves. Had they remained on the Chagos islands, had Diego Garcia never become a base, and had the cold war never happened, the islanders would have had an elected authority of some sort. They would now be residents of those islands and they would be receiving passports, just like the people of St. Helena and all the other places. The Chagos islanders were plucked away, so the Bill had to be Specially amended in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for that enormous step forward.

      277
      Had the Ilois people remained on the Chagos islands, their elected authority would have been supported by public funds, as is the case in all the other territories. Apart from the minimal compensation given to the Ilois on settlement in Mauritius, they have received no support whatever. We should be grateful to the Mauritius Government for the support that they have given, but the Ilois have lived in poverty. For Olivier to come to this country, they must arrange a collection among the community to buy him an air ticket so that he can negotiate with the British Government on behalf of his people. I hope that when we meet in April, there will be some recognition of the need for practical support for the community, and in addition, for pensions for the older members of the community, and access to further and higher education—primary education is provided by the Government of Mauritius.
      I welcome what has been achieved so far. It has been a great step forward, but we are not quite there yet. A ghastly injustice happened. It has not yet been put right. The Americans are not allowing Chagos islanders to work on the base. The British Indian Ocean Territories police are not allowing them to return to the islands, and the impact assessment seems to be taking rather a long time.
      I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I are well seized of the matter and have no plans to let it go. We will keep on raising it in the House. We recognise the importance of what has happened, but there is a way to go. Justice will finally happen when the Chagos islanders can make a genuine choice to continue living in Mauritius or the Seychelles or to return to their ancestral homes, with the right to see the graves of their ancestors and the place from which they were so brutally taken away. A horrible injustice happened; let us put it right.
      7.47 pm
      Mr. Michael Trend: I reiterate my support for the Bill. Its passage through the House has been refreshingly free of party political sniping. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would have liked to see the measure passed when we were in government. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on introducing it.
      I agree that there is a need to get the measure into law as expeditiously as possible. I welcome the Minister's comments to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) about finding a way to finesse the important matter to the islanders of St. Helena of their anniversary and the generous gesture that has been made.
      I have one or two regrets about the Bill. We have heard about higher education opportunities for people on some of the territories. I should have preferred it if we could have made statutory provision for that in the Bill. We raised the matter in Committee, but it is not to be. It is clear that the Government will not move on that. I know that in various Departments the Government have schemes to help the overseas territories where there are special training requirements or where special expertise is needed.
      I ask the Government to be sympathetic with regard to further and higher education. There is no reasonable prospect of very many islanders from around the world being able to afford the residence that would be necessary and the cost of higher education. I hope that the
      278
      Government will keep a special place in their mind to ensure that there is a steady flow of well-educated younger people coming from and going back to the territories.
      I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) about the ship and the airport. I believe that the St. Helenians and others who are interested in the matter—the Falkland islanders, the Ascension islanders and even those on the ship—recently had a vote, which came out decisively in favour of building an airport on St. Helena. There are arguments for and against that. One can appreciate the problems of an airport, including its cost and the expense of replacing the boat.
      However, the islanders and those associated with the islands have expressed a clear, democratic view that they want to take what many must perceive as a risk. I hope that the Department for International Development and other partners in the project will give it a clear run. The circumstances of the islanders, especially those on St. Helena, are unusual. If they want an airport, I hope that the Government can ensure that they get it.
      I regret that it was not proper to discuss British overseas citizenship in the context of the Bill. It is purely a coincidence that I wrote to the Minister yesterday about a constituency case of a British overseas citizen in Tanzania. She was given, probably mistakenly, a full British passport 10 years ago. When she tried to renew it, she was told that she should not have had it in the first place. However, for 10 years, she was sure that she was a full British citizen, and she believed that her children would also have that status. I ask the Minister to consider the letter carefully because the status of British overseas citizens remains unsatisfactory. We may have to revert to the matter on another occasion. When our authorities have made errors, sympathy should be shown to those who have been misled for some time.
      My greatest regret is that we have failed to make progress on establishing an annual report to the House on the subject. The Minister rightly pointed out that several extraneous debates took place around the Bill. That happened because many hon. Members are interested in the subject, but it is rarely discussed in the Chamber. The Minister said that we cannot have an annual report or debate. However, he also said that the Overseas Territories Consultative Council meets annually in London in the autumn, and that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs can consider the overseas territories. Perhaps it could schedule an annual discussion. The Government might wish to invite somebody from the Committee to the Overseas Territories Consultative Council; perhaps hon. Members could be involved in the meeting. If the Minister asked me, I should be delighted to attend this year.
      There is frustration that we do not have sufficient opportunity to discuss such important issues except during short Adjournment debates. I ask the Minister and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee to consider whether a regular event could be held.
      Simon Hughes: I support that idea. Although there may be some obligation on the Government, I hope that the parties collaborate to facilitate a regular annual debate.

      279
      Other subjects have set a precedent, which we could usefully follow. Pressure on the Government should be maintained.
      Mr. Trend: That was a helpful intervention. There is a problem of democratic deficit. The Government have made laws and are writing constitutions for some territories, which have no direct representation here. That problem will not go away. It will be exacerbated if the Government have other ambitions to make laws in those territories. For the sake of everyone's sanity, I therefore recommend a regular occasion for considering such matters. A problem could thus be perceived when it appeared on the horizon rather than when it got closer.
      I thank the Minister, especially for the many letters that he has written and the explanations that he has given. I am particularly grateful for a recent letter about Cyprus. I probed the matter delicately in Committee, and he provided a full explanation. I am now an expert on the way in which British citizenship relates to Cyprus, and the circumstances of our treaty. I am sure that that also applies to him. I am also grateful to those in his office who have spoken to me about the complicated circumstances on Pitcairn. I hope to be kept in touch with events there as they unfold.
      I congratulate the Father of the House and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) who have done so much for Chagos islanders. I acknowledge that the Government have taken an important step forward with grace and style. That is a good development.
      I wish the Bill and our new citizens well. They may not be full citizens, as some of us would like, but they are British citizens and they will have passports like the rest of us. That development, long overdue, will be welcome in all the territories. I hope that the Bill is passed.
      7.56 pm
      Bob Russell: Liberal Democrats Welcome the progress that the Bill has made; it is on its final stretch. I thank the civil servants and Ministers who have been involved in the journey from the start.
      The reasons for introducing the Bill have not been mentioned this evening. It should be put on record that a grave injustice was done 20 to 21 years ago. It is to the Government's credit that they are righting that wrong. The importance of 21 May for St. Helena has already been mentioned. However, resolving citizenship problems as soon as possible is important for all the overseas territories for the reasons that have been given. We are considering 200,000 people. That is not a large number in the grand scheme of things.
      I want to concentrate on St. Helena because it introduced me to the subject that we are considering. Shortly after the 1997 general election, I received a letter from a constituent who drew my attention to the injustice that had been inflicted on that island and the other territories. That led to my visiting St. Helena. There is a connection between the island and my constituency because St. Helena is the patron saint of Colchester; I was educated at St. Helena school. The spelling is the same as that of the island, but the pronunciation is different. Many Saints who reside in the United Kingdom will welcome
      280
      the Bill. I am sure that we all know Mr. Calvin Thomas, one of our Doorkeepers. He is one Saint who will be delighted that progress has been made.
      More people per head of population on St. Helena volunteer for Her Majesty's armed forces than anywhere else that is connected with the United Kingdom. We have responsibility for the territories, but they have no elected representation here. When we examine constitutional reform, perhaps we could consider a way in which all overseas territories can have an input into the democratic process here.
      St. Helena has a slogan: ACE—"A" for access, "C" for citizenship and "E" for economy and education. Tonight we are moving firmly towards putting a tick against the "C" for citizenship. Reference has been made to education, but the economy of the island needs more than just education; it needs further sustainable help.
      That brings me to the "A" for access. Although this is not dealt with in the Bill, the island's future depends on access. I have had the joy of visiting it, but it took a week to get there. It was an enjoyable trip, but the island cannot fulfil its economic destiny if the only access to it is by means of a week's journey by boat; an airfield is required.
      This is a joyous evening, and I congratulate the Minister and his team. If he can deliver these provisions by 21 May, there may well be a statue of him in Jamestown in the future.
      8 pm
      Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I reiterate the comments of many hon. Members in congratulating the Government on introducing the Bill. It is long overdue, and I regret the fact that these measures were not introduced by the Conservative Government. All British people should be given equal rights, and be treated in exactly the same way, whoever they are and wherever in the world they may live. I believe that everybody in this democratically elected House of Commons should support that view.
      I commend the Government on taking this great step towards giving the people of the overseas territories the right to British citizenship that has been denied them for so long. The Minister talked about many of the overseas territories being geographically far away from the British isles. That is true in many cases. They are not far away, however, in terms of their desire to be British or of their determination to have the same status that we and our constituents enjoy. So, while I congratulate the Government—as everyone has done tonight—I believe that that is a matter to which greater consideration should be given.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) said that there was a democratic deficit, and that is absolutely true. We should all be concerned about that problem; it involves British people whom we in this Parliament govern. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is not here tonight, spoke in the debate in Westminster Hall last week on Gibraltar. He said that the Prime Minister of Gibraltar was Tony Blair. He also said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Gibraltar was Gordon Brown, and that its Defence Secretary was Geoff Hoon—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now moving outside the scope of the Bill. This is a Third Reading debate and he must confine his remarks to the contents of the Bill before the House.
      Mr. Rosindell: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Although we are all congratulating the Government on introducing the Bill, we must look beyond it. We have to consider the other people for whom we have responsibility—the people of the British overseas territories—and I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on his steadfast defence of the people of St. Helena. I also congratulate all those who have spoken up for the rights of the people of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I am delighted that their rights were acknowledged in Committee. This is a huge step in the right direction. I commend the Government on what they are proposing to do at this stage, but I ask them to look at this issue in the longer term, to consider the points made about democratic representation, and to give all British people of the overseas territories the same rights that we enjoy in the British isles. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) suggested on Second Reading that these matters could also be considered in discussions relating to the constitutional reform of the House of Lords, and I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
      8.5 pm
      Mr. Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me if I rattle through my speech somewhat. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out that I was feeling a bit under the weather, and I am hoping to get through this before I have to rush out. I shall try to do so without hurrying too much.
      I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate. As ever, it has been excellent, and I am particularly grateful for the constructive and courteous approach adopted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) throughout the Bill's passage through the House. He raised a number of issues that have been raised before in Committee and elsewhere. On higher education—an issue raised by a number of hon. Members—we have a great deal of sympathy with the citizens of the overseas territories who will become British citizens under the Bill. I can only repeat that the Bill deals with citizenship, not residency. Rights and access to higher education, and help with higher education funding in this country, are dependent on residency, not on citizenship.
      That does not mean, however, that the Government are not looking at new ways in which we could help, particularly in the case of some of the more remote territories that have no higher education facilities. Some such schemes are already in operation, and I remind hon. Members that a review of higher education funding is currently going on in Government, to which I hope they will contribute, making the points they have made here tonight.
      282
      I should like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and other hon. Members on the Ilois. That brings me to the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North throughout the passage of the Bill; he has made an outstanding contribution. He is right to say that a terrible wrong was meted out to the Ilois people, and, step by step, we are putting that right. Certainly, as long as I am in this job, I shall continue to listen very sympathetically to any representations that he makes that are similar to those he made this evening. I hope that he will take up the issues directly in a meeting that he is having with my noble Friend who leads on the matter of the overseas territories in the other place, Baroness Amos.
      My hon. Friend's question about the yacht intrigued me, so I asked my officials for advice. Apparently, there is nothing to stop anyone from returning to the outer islands. It is just that, at the moment, the Ilois want us to do it for them; they want us to organise a resettlement package. So, in theory, in the unlikely event of an Ilois having the money, they could hop on to one of these yachts and go back. There is no law against people arriving on the outer islands.
      Jeremy Corbyn: A bit of hitch-hiking, perhaps.
      Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I suspect that that is something that both of us did in our younger days—if not still, when I occasionally find myself stranded in strange parts of the world.
      The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) touched on the issue of higher education, and I hope that what I have said will encourage him. I was asked why there was no statutory provision written into the Bill, and I have explained that that is because the Bill is about citizenship, and not about residency, which is what confers rights to higher education funding. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about St. Helena's access problems. He will be aware that the Department for International Development has agreed to fund the lower amount already, and it is discussing helpfully and sympathetically with the St. Helena Government how the difference can be made up between the cost of the airport and the new ship. I promise to give close attention to the letter that the hon. Gentleman has written to me on British overseas citizens, although that subject was outside the scope of the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) expressed their disquiet that the citizens of the overseas territories do not have political representation. They do, however, have such representation in that a lot of them have quite a high level of self-governance. I would suggest that they also have indirect political representation in this House and in the other place. The total population of the overseas territories is about 200,000—less than twice the population of my constituency. Given the time that the two Houses spend debating the overseas territories—quite rightly—and the time Members dedicate to championing the cause of those territories, I think they are better represented than many of our constituencies.
      Mr. Rosindell: I understand that there is a proposal for Western Isles with a population of 21,000, to retain its single Member of Parliament. Gibraltar has a population of 29,000.
      Mr. Bradshaw: As Western Isles is part of the United Kingdom, there is a substantial difference.
      One or two Members pointed out that a review was currently being conducted of second-stage reform of the House of Lords. I urge Members, through their parties or through the usual channels, to make their feelings known about how the overseas territories might be represented in that way; but the suggestion that they are under-represented is, I think, a long way from the truth.
      The hon. Member for Colchester picked up a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), which I did not catch, about statues. I hope there was no suggestion that—given the small role I have played in the Bill's passage—there should be a statue of me. Many others have been involved, not least Lady Amos, the lead Minister on these matters, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was responsible for the White Paper in which the Bill had its beginnings. My right hon. Friend still shows a great interest in the Bill, and he was extremely helpful in securing the Ilois amendments. Many people, not least in the House of Commons, do a great job in championing the causes of the overseas territories, and would be far worthier subjects of any statues, wherever they might be erected.
      I thank hon. Members for supporting a Bill that means so such to so many. In particular I thank my officials, who have done an excellent job in getting the Bill through so smoothly and responding to Members' queries about its details. Those officials will consider what more needs to be done in the light of today's debate. In the meantime, I am delighted that we have agreed that the Bill can be returned to another place for final approval.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  DEREGULATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I propose to put together the Questions on the deregulation motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

  DEREGULATION
    RESTAURANT LICENSING HOURS
    That the draft Deregulation (Restaurant Licensing Hours) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

    GAMING
    That the draft Deregulation (Bingo and Other Gaming) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    FRAUD
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 9208/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—the fight against fraud: Commission's Twelfth Annual Report 2000, 9207/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—Fight Against Fraud: Action Plan for 2001–2003, and the Court of Auditors' annual report for 2000; and encourages the Government's continuing efforts to promote and support measures to improve financial management and reduce the opportunities for fraud against the EC financial interest.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS
    That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    PARISH COUNCILS
    Ordered,
    That the Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) (England) order 2001, (S.I., 2001, No. 3576), dated 5th November 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Community Football
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
8.13 pm
Colin Burgon: I am happy to have secured a debate on a subject that is of such interest to me and, I hope, to millions of other people.
As a keen student of American politics, I know that the Gettysburg address lasted two and a half minutes. I think that my address will last slightly longer, and I hope that it will buy me a place in history.
Let me begin by quoting what Nelson Mandela said to Leeds United footballer Lucas Radebe when they met in South Africa:
"We can reach far more people through sport than we can through political or educational programmes. In that way, sport is more powerful than politics. We have only just begun to use its potential to build up this country. We must continue to do so."
That is a powerful statement with important implications, and it sets my agenda for this evening. The context of the statement is very pertinent, and I will return to it later.
As recently as 30 January my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) initiated a wide-ranging and informative debate in Westminster Hall on football club funding. Tonight, I want to concentrate on football in the community, and although this debate will be less wide ranging I hope it will be at least as informative.
Let me praise the role of the Football Foundation, launched in July 2000 under the excellent chairmanship of Lord Pendry. It is a unique partnership, consisting of the Football Association, the premier league, Sport England and the Government. Its aims include establishing a new generation of modern football facilities in parks, local leagues and schools, the provision of capital and revenue support for the running of "grass-roots" football, and strengthening the links between football and the community to harness the potential of football as a force for good in society. Football is seen as a means by which we can achieve social cohesion, and as a vehicle for education in the community throughout the country. That is the aspect that I want to discuss.
Professional football clubs today are big business. I first started attending games with my father in the late 1950s—I hope I am not giving my age away—and I have witnessed at first hand the tremendous changes, not all of them positive, that have taken place. In those days, clubs were run by a prominent local business man, with the emphasis on "local". When I first went to matches, the chairman of Leeds United was a man called Harry Reynolds, a scrap-metal merchant who made urgent half-time appeals to people not to throw their lighted cigarette ends into the straw piled on the edge of the pitch to protect the playing surface from frost. Today we have under-soil heating to protect the pitch. That small detail encapsulates the way in which clubs have been transformed.
Make no mistake: clubs have indeed been transformed. The main stakeholders are the shareholders, and the bigger the individual shareholding, the bigger the influence. That is a reflection of the world of modern business. Football clubs, however, are a very special kind of business. The stakeholders include the supporters,
286
who feel that such clubs are truly their clubs, and the wider community, who identify with their local football clubs. In that sense football is a business, but it is certainly unique.
It would be hard to argue with the view that there is almost a perfect word association between the cities and towns of our country and their football clubs. It is impossible to think of one without picturing the other. Who could think of Colchester without thinking of Colchester United?
The world of football is a world of excitement. It is a magnet for young people who hold their favourite clubs and football heroes in great esteem. The question now asked by a growing number of professional clubs is how that power can be harnessed and used to the benefit of the community. I am very pleased that my home-city club, Leeds United, is at the forefront of that move.
As long ago as 1998 the Leeds United chairman Peter Ridsdale—a man of vision and energy—and his board of directors made a commitment that, while planning to make Leeds one of the top clubs in Europe, they would also work to make a similar impact in the area of community development. As a result, Community United was launched. Resources were put into the club. I am now informed that they are running at £750,000 a year, which attracts additional funding from both the public and the private sectors.
After four years of effort, and thanks to the imagination and commitment of Emma Stanford, the head of community affairs, the community department has 30 full-time staff, 35 part-time staff and more than 100 volunteers. By my reading, that makes it the biggest community football team in the country. Interestingly, the department is bigger than Leeds United's commercial department.
The work of Community United can be divided roughly into three areas: football in the community, community affairs and education and learning. The first area, football in the community, revolves principally around grass-roots football coaching for girls and boys of all abilities from the ages of five to 14. I am pleased that provision is also made for children with disabilities in the ability counts programme.
Almost 50,000 children are involved in the coaching programme, with the emphasis, I am pleased to say, on enjoyment as much as skill. Rewards are based on attitude and improvement rather than talent; in that sense, I would be a gifted pupil.
The second area covers community affairs—it is truly wide ranging. It encompasses such things as the fans forum, which attempts to give the ordinary fan real influence in elements of the way in which the club operates; the organising of creche and playgroups; and support for various charities.
The club has, for example, supported the well known St. Gemma's hospice in Leeds. It has worked with the Royal National Institute for the Blind to produce a pioneering large print programme, and it is currently working closely with Macmillan Cancer Relief on a badge appeal. Leeds United has donated £7,000 to produce 50,000 replica blue away kit shirt lapel badges. So far, more than 33,000 badges have been distributed, and at a cost of £1 they will give Macmillan Cancer Relief a significant financial boost. That hands-on approach to

287
supporting charities extends beyond the domestic front. For example, the club gives financial assistance to a children's AIDS orphanage in Malawi.
Carrying on the international theme, it is a source of pride at the club that when the British Council organised a one-day seminar as part of its football nation initiative in South Africa's soccer expo in Johannesburg, it chose Leeds United to make the presentation. Emma Stanford and Steve Smith, the club's education manager, were asked to explain how the education programme runs at Elland Road and to investigate the practicalities of South African clubs launching similar schemes. It was at that time that the comments I quoted earlier from Nelson Mandela were made to Leeds United and South Africa captain Lucas Radebe, whose life was partly lived in Soweto, under the shadow of apartheid.
Lucas Radebe has been centrally involved with the Leeds United against racism campaign. Along with fellow players such as Olivier Dacourt, Mark Viduka and Rio Ferdinand, he has visited schools to talk about the need to combat racism. In the past few weeks, certificates have been presented, in partnership with the Yorkshire Evening Post, to several primary schools in the south Leeds area for raising awareness of racism. The Leeds United against racism campaign has recently distributed 30,000 team photos to school children throughout the city and surrounding areas.
As stated in a recent match programme, the club is conscious that working alone it cannot get rid of racism—a problem that faces the whole of society. However, the club has made it clear that it will do whatever is in its power to combat racism.
That intent is particularly significant in the case of a club such as Leeds, which in the past has been bedevilled by the problem of racist groups attaching themselves to the club and tarnishing its image and, indeed, that of the city. I remember when a black goalkeeper playing for Manchester City—the Minister will probably remember him—was bombarded by the crowd with bananas. The response of the management at that time was to say, "It is just high spirits. There is nothing in it." I also saw the crowd at Elland Road endlessly bait Justin Fashanu, who played for Norwich City and who is unfortunately now dead. It was enough to turn my stomach. It was probably the only time in my life that I have cheered when an opponent, Justin Fashanu, put the ball in the back of the Leeds United net. Progress has been made.
The third area of Community United's work is education and learning. As an ex-school teacher, I am particularly interested in that aspect. I have visited the learning centre at Elland Road with Emma Stanford to see at first hand the type of work in which Steve Smith and his colleagues are engaged. Their work encompasses all the 23 primary schools and four high schools in what is called the local family of schools. It is worth noting that some 47 clubs from the premier league and Nationwide division one are involved in the playing for success programme and that Leeds was one of the three original pilots, along with Newcastle United and the Minister's second favourite team, Sheffield Wednesday.
The playing for success initiative established by the Department for Education and Skills has proved very popular with pupils, parents and schools, and nowhere
288
more so than at Leeds United. Great work has been done in the learning centre, which is based beneath the south stand and occupies an area the full width of the football pitch. The staff at the learning centre set themselves five objectives: to raise pupil achievement; to develop pupils' skills in literacy, numeracy and information and communication technology; to develop pupils' confidence and self-esteem; to increase pupil motivation; and to develop positive links with parents. By any subjective or objective measure, the staff are achieving real progress.
The parental feedback collected by the learning centre revealed that all parents were very pleased that their child had attended the Leeds United study support centre. The vast majority—more than 95 per cent.—agreed that the centre had helped their child to get better at reading, writing, maths and computer use. Many identified the fact that their child was more willing to go to school and had a wider circle of friends, and some believed that their child had a better chance of getting a job when they left school as a result. About 70 per cent. of parents commented that their child's confidence had also increased.
The feedback from pupils was also very positive. The playing for success sessions operated outside school hours each evening from 3.30 to 7.30 and on Saturday mornings. On top of that, children spent up to an extra hour and a half travelling to and from the centre in all weathers. To bear testimony to the popularity of the project, an impressive 40 per cent. of pupils received 100 per cent. attendance awards. The vast majority of pupils recognised that they had developed their skills in literacy, numeracy and particularly ICT. Attitudes to learning had become more positive and their confidence had increased. The only doubt that pupils seemed to have was about the quality of the orange juice on offer.
The evaluation done by the National Foundation for Educational Research also makes very positive reading. Its findings at national level can be applied to the success achieved by the Leeds United learning centre. The first key finding of the NFER report was that pupils made substantial and significant progress in numeracy. On average, primary pupils improved their numeracy scores by about 21 months, and secondary pupils improved theirs by about eight months. Secondary pupils' reading comprehension scores improved significantly—by the equivalent of about six months. Teachers also noticed particular improvements in pupils' self-confidence and ICT skills.
To underpin all those findings, the report said:
"The football setting proved attractive to all pupils, regardless of gender and ethnic background. It was a strong element in motivating pupils to become involved in 'Playing for Success'."
That is further proof of the power and far-reaching influence of our national game and the way in which it has been harnessed to achieve positive outcomes for the community.
In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I would be copping out—to use a Yorkshire phrase—if I failed to mention the Bowyer-Woodgate case that has generated such negative publicity for Leeds United. I agree with the comments recently made by chairman Peter Ridsdale in a match programme. He said that, due to the case
"There has been a shadow cast over all the good work we have done … substantial damage has been done to the club's reputation."

289
Peter Ridsdale is a man with both his feet firmly on the ground. He is intelligent and perceptive enough to acknowledge the gravity of the case and its wide-ranging repercussions.
In acknowledging and highlighting the work done in the community by Leeds United football club, I hope that I can help to ensure a balanced, accurate and informed debate about the part played by football clubs and players in the community. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister reaffirming his support for the Football Foundation and its valuable work in promoting football in the community, and recognising the work of Leeds United in the community. In many respects, it is a leader in this field. It is also an example to other large companies and organisations of the need to get involved in their communities.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend also use his considerable influence in discussions with the football authorities and the Professional Footballers Association to raise the issue of highly paid players acknowledging in their contracts the need to help develop football in the community? It is only right and proper that clubs and players recognise the debt that they owe to the community that in turn supports them.
8.29 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) for bringing this matter to the House's attention this evening. It is nice to be able to respond to a debate about Leeds United in a positive way. It is good to hear about what might be called the other side of the coin with regard to the club, and to hear the argument put so forcefully by my hon. Friend. I know that he has followed football, and Leeds United, for many years. He has been deeply involved in the development of the role of the club that he has described this evening.
I also wish to put on record my support for the Football Foundation and its work. I had a meeting last night with Lord Pendry and Peter Lee, the chief executive of the Football Foundation, who are doing a fine job. Having laid the foundations of their work in their first 12 months in post, they are now really developing matters. I was with the Football Foundation in the north-east a couple of weeks ago, looking for ways to develop further the area's football heritage among amateur clubs.
I am also pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned Emma Stanford and Steve Smith. I spoke to them about community development at Leeds United, and credit is due to them for their vision and hard work in that respect. I am pleased that their efforts have been brought to the House's attention.
There is no doubt that certain players have brought the sport into disrepute. I do not want to discuss that in detail this evening. The House is well aware that the behaviour of a few players, on and off the pitch, is a matter for the clubs that employ them and for the sport's governing bodies.
I have made my concerns about recent developments clear to the football authorities. I still have those concerns, but I know that the football authorities are taking action. The legislation that was put onto the statute book a little while ago is helping them to deal with what I hope will be isolated incidents. I want us to get back to where we used to be with football. I believe that the sport was
290
developing a good corporate governance which, as my hon. Friend noted, involved fans and community in a very positive way.
I was glad to hear about the efforts of some players to redeem the reputation of the Leeds United club in the local community. Those efforts have included real commitment to playing for success, which established out-of-school-hours study support centres at football clubs and other sports grounds. As my hon. Friend said, the Leeds United club deserves commendation, as it was one of the pioneers in setting up the original playing for success project. Moreover, the club's own learning centre has justly been praised.
The centres use the sporting environment as a motivational tool to raise standards of literacy, numeracy and computer skills among children who are struggling at school and who may lack motivation. Centres are located at clubs and are staffed by experienced teachers, supported by students in further and higher education. That is to be welcomed, as the linkages between the various institutions involved and the clubs are very important.
The centres usually have a first-class IT centre, generally sponsored by local business. I have seen many examples as I have gone around the country. Real enthusiasm exists, as is evident in the sponsorship—financial and sometimes material—provided by local businesses, and in the involvement of companies in the community. That involvement also reaps reciprocal benefits for those businesses.
I have been delighted with the progress of the initiative and would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those involved with the development of this programme, both in Government and in the community sector. More than 25,000 pupils have benefited so far, and a further 25,000 will also benefit each year when all the proposed centres are opened.
Many centres are also opening during the school day, and are helping adult learning. In that way, they support other initiatives such as Learn Direct and the new deal. As my hon. Friend said, 57 football and other sports clubs have signed up to the full PFS model, and 43 have opened other centres. A further 13 clubs are involved in developing other innovative ways of linking education and sport under the PFS banner.
National evaluations of playing for success have found improvements in literacy and numeracy, ICT skills and motivation to learn. That is happening in some of the more difficult areas around the country, as that is where the centres are located. Indeed, the evaluation carried out in 2001 found significant gains in pupil performance, including numeracy scores improving by an average of 21 months. That is a staggering improvement when we consider that the young people going to these centres think that they are no-hopers.
The evaluation also found that the scheme reached its target group of under-achieving pupils, and that all benefited regardless of gender, deprivation, ethnicity, fluency in English or special needs. A third-year evaluation is shortly to be completed and early indications predict similar significant gains.
Football does a great deal of excellent work, but it is not the only sport that appreciates its important role in community development. I am also aware of many initiatives developed by the regional administrators of

291
sports such as cricket, rugby league and rugby union. In my city of Sheffield, basketball has also taken up the challenge. These initiatives, which are often developed independently of Government programmes, have incorporated the Government's message that sport and recreational activities can make a significant difference and a major contribution to neighbourhood renewal. They can bring about real improvement in a range of areas, including health, employment, education and the reduction of crime.
These sports do not always get football's publicity, so I shall say a few words about some that play a tremendous role in our communities. I have been impressed by the initiatives that have been supported by the English rugby league. The diversity and quality of some these initiatives are, in no small measure, a consequence of the location of many clubs in areas of considerable ethnic diversity and social and economic deprivation. I commend these clubs and the sport of English rugby league as a whole on their initiative and professionalism in embracing their communities in this way.
Most rugby league clubs run thriving community schemes. In Bradford, which is very near my hon. Friend's constituency, the Bradford Bulls are an excellent example of what rugby league is doing. The Bulls visit more than 100 schools each year to deliver assemblies, road shows and coaching programmes, with initiatives tackling drug awareness and racism in sport. That is a considerable achievement. As a further development, the club has set up the Bull study centre. Assisted by Bradford local education authority, the centre encourages young people to absorb positive lifestyle messages and develop self-esteem and confidence in a sporting environment.
The Bulls are involved in many other community programmes, and their success must be attributed to the club's partnership with my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. There is also considerable involvement with local government, private enterprise and the private sector.
Cricket is another widely supported team sport through which clubs have acknowledged their role in community development. I have been pleased to learn of the organisations for cricket played by disabled people. There are two independent organisations representing disabled cricket—the Cricket Federation for People with Disabilities and the British Association for Cricketers with Disabilities—and they are working together to develop disabled people's position in the sport.
The England and Wales Cricket Board has a disability subgroup which is charged with meeting the needs of disabled people who wish to play cricket. The subgroup is a partnership between the board and the two disability organisations, the British Deaf Sports Council and British Blind Sport. Developments taking place through the national governing body are already paying dividends. The Somerset Disabled Cricket Club, for example, is an integral part of the county set-up. The club competes effectively in the disabled county championship and
292
works in partnership with Leonard Cheshire, the leading United Kingdom charity providing services for disabled people, now in 51 countries around the world.
Another of sport's governing bodies, the Welsh rugby union, has also embraced initiatives that invest in the community that it serves. That has been going on since 1992 through the Dragons rugby trust whose initial programme was designed to support the development of rugby union in Wales.
The trust's programme is not elitist. It aims to promote excellence as a by-product of the widest possible participation of young people in Wales. The trust attracts sponsorship from the private sector as well as support from the International Rugby Board. It also seeks to promote the more intangible facets of community involvement—building on the feelings of inclusion and enthusiasm felt by many young people in Wales when watching their national game. The personal development of young people through sport is an important aim of the trust.
The trust aims to increase the number of Dragon development officers to one per unitary authority, and to support that work through the appointment of community development officers, funded jointly by the public, private and voluntary sectors. Another important objective is to expand provision for girls and for youngsters with learning and other disabilities. Although they are enthusiastic about rugby, they sometimes find few opportunities to participate in the game. The trust is working hard to achieve social inclusion through rugby union in Wales.
Considerable work is going on throughout the country to address through the medium of sport some of the difficult problems as regards social inclusion, drugs awareness and, to some extent, health and education. My hon. Friend has been able to bring to the attention of the House the positive role that football is playing. I shall take his message to professional footballers by asking what further role they can play not only in their game but in the wider community.
I have no doubt that the PFA and the football authorities will consider the points that my hon. Friend has made. I shall also raise those points in future meetings with those bodies. If they would sign up contractually to play a role in the community, that would send out all the right signals. Of course, many of them willingly undertake such a role. They know of the importance of their grass roots and of the importance of community development through football.
My hon. Friend's proposals have value and I hope that they are picked up by the authorities. The players themselves can do a tremendous amount for the community in which they play and where their clubs are situated. They could learn from the example of the community work carried out by Leeds United. I again thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Gambling Review Report
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Janet Dean: I am delighted to have secured a debate on the subject of the gambling review report. This is the second one-and-a-half-hour debate on the issue, which shows the strength of feeling that people have on some of the recommendations made in the Budd report. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present for the previous Westminster Hall debate on 6 November 2001, but I have read Hansard and was pleased to see that it was a good, frank debate. I hope that today's debate will be of equal value.
Hansard records that hon. Members representing seaside resorts expressed understandably strong views in the previous debate about recommendations that could adversely affect their constituencies. I assure the House that there are also real concerns in constituencies such as mine, which are as far away from the sea as one can get. In my constituency, the town of Burton upon Trent is famous for its breweries. Indeed, it can justly be called the capital of brewing. Unsurprisingly, a number of industries have grown up around the production of beer. Perhaps the best known by-product is Marmite. It is said that people either love it or hate it, but I shall make no comment. It is produced in Burton, and I am pleased to say that the company is celebrating its centenary this year.
Another development from the town's brewing heritage has been the gaming machine industry. More than 500 people are employed in Burton in three businesses that service that industry. Leisure Link and Rank Leisure Machine Services supply, operate and distribute the machines, and Vivid Gaming designs gaming and amusement machine equipment. Obviously, anything that might adversely affect the industry is of direct concern to many of my constituents.
It is important to recognise the many positive proposals made in the Budd report. Many of its recommendations are sensible. It endeavours to modernise and to be libertarian yet, at the same time, it tries to crack down on illegalities. Since our previous debate, recommendation 72 has been implemented, which I welcome. It has increased the stake to 50p and the maximum prize to £25 on all cash machines. I visited two of the companies in my constituency in the new year, and they were pleased about that change.
We need to protect the vulnerable in society by ensuring, as far as possible, that problem gambling is limited, and that when it occurs, effective treatment is provided for people. I believe that the need for a voluntarily funded gambling trust is supported by all parts of the industry. However, one of the main concerns that has been expressed about the gambling
70WH
review body's recommendations relates to ambient gambling. That misconceived concept particularly affects the gaming machine industry.
If the recommendations are carried through, every sector of the industry—pubs, clubs, the seaside and licensed gaming centres—will see a decline in demand and in the need for machines. That will affect manufacturers and suppliers of the product. The presumption is that ambient gambling, which the report describes as
"gambling opportunities that are available in locations which are not dedicated to gambling"
is more dangerous than gambling in premises where it is a primary function, such as in casinos or bingo halls. However, the report states:
"As with the Rothschild Commission, more than two decades ago, we were struck by how little is known about either normal or problem gambling. We had very little in the way of hard evidence to guide our discussions."
To help remedy that problem, the report recommends that
"research be carried out to understand the nature of normal, responsible, gambling behaviour and to understand the development of, and risk factors for, problem gambling".
In the report, there is also a presumption that gaming machines should be restricted in pubs because they are secondary to the consumption of alcohol, and yet the review body recommends that alcohol be permitted on the gaming floors of casinos.
I welcome the proposals for casinos and bingo halls. However, it is important to recognise that British manufacturers will not benefit from the potential introduction of thousands of casino slot machines with unlimited stakes and prizes. The expertise and technology for those machines lies with manufacturers in the United States that will export casino slot machines to the United Kingdom.
Bingo halls provide a valuable form of entertainment and a comfortable leisure activity for many people, especially women who want to go out and meet friends. For most people, visiting a casino is not an everyday activity. Indeed, those who are frequent visitors to such gaming establishments might be viewed as problem gamblers. It would be interesting to study whether most problem gamblers are found in casinos, where the primary function is gambling, or the local pub, where ambient gambling may take place.
In the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 6 November, he and other hon. Members spoke eloquently about the impact of the recommendations on seaside arcades. The subject was well aired then and no doubt will be returned to today.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She refers to seaside resorts and obviously will develop that point. The recommendations could be devastating for the traditional seaside resort as we know it. She has not yet mentioned rugby, football and other sporting and social clubs. The profitability of many rugby clubs in my constituency is based simply on one or two gaming machines.
Mrs. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall come to members' clubs in a moment. I do not underestimate the impact of the proposals on seaside resorts or clubs. Those who represent seaside resorts may comment further today. Although I have enjoyed the odd hour or two in such arcades on a wet afternoon, I shall leave that aspect of the report to those who represent our sunny shores.
Strong representations have been made about members' clubs and the proposals to remove jackpot machines. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has been lobbied close to home on the issue, and I am sure that he recognises the strength of the argument that many clubs would not survive if they could no longer rely on the income from the machines. In the previous debate, reference was made to the recommendations of the gambling review body to limit the number of all cash gaming machines allowed in public houses.
Ms Julia Drown: Does my hon. Friend agree that we all see problems caused by gambling and alcohol in our constituencies, but that those problems do not seem to be the driving force behind the review? Is her postbag like mine, in that owners of pubs and clubs write to point out the extra leisure facilities and community support that they provide? Given that, does she agree that we need to hear from the Minister about Government recognition of the importance of that sector and the need for stability in it?
Mrs. Dean: Yes, I hope that we shall hear that today, as I am concerned about the pub sector. I represent the capital of brewing, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I want our pubs to remain viable so that they can sell the golden nectar—the beer—that so many of my constituents produce.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend recollect whether she has had representations from the Scottish clubs on this matter?
Mrs. Dean: No, I cannot. Understandably, however, I have had many representations from constituents who work in the gaming machine industry. I want to speak out not only for those who are directly employed in the industry but for those who work in local businesses and who manage pub estates.
The argument for restricting pubs to up to two all-cash machines is not valid. I would go so far as to say that it is total nonsense to suggest that no account should be taken of the size of the pub. It is absurd to limit a 5,000 sq ft multi-bar pub to just two machines, while allowing a 400 sq ft pub with a single bar exactly the same entitlement.
Currently, local magistrates can approve up to five machines. The British Amusement Catering Trades Association—the trade organisation of the gaming machine industry—believes that it would be sensible to consider legislation to allow up to four all-cash machines as of right. That would reduce bureaucracy and free up valuable local authority time. Cases in which more machines were desired could, in exceptional circumstances, be considered individually.
The gambling review says that pubs have an average of 1.28 machines, so it appears that the report's recommendation is generous. It is, however, important
72WH
to recognise that not all pubs have, or want, gaming machines, while others have five or more. All pubs are different, and 80 per cent. are independent small businesses. They are often the only source of entertainment in their local community, which they can also provide with other services.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome the thrust of the hon. Lady's remarks. She makes a good point about the economic and social contribution made by pubs, and the same is true of arcades in coastal resorts. She may be aware of the Government's initiatives to revive such resorts, but it is not good joined-up government to threaten the future of traditional family arcades at the same time. Closing those arcades in the way outlined in the report will deal a devastating blow to the coastal resorts and seaside centres that, in another context, the Government say that they are trying to help.
Mrs. Dean: I agree. In our last debate on this subject, a good case was made as regards the needs of the seaside. I would hate to see the demise of seaside arcades, which are a part of our history that, like Marmite, goes back 100 years. We must try to save them. I also agree about the need to regenerate our seaside resorts, and it would be wrong to put obstacles in the way of regeneration.
Our pubs and clubs provide pool and snooker tables, thereby making other leisure activities available to local people, but those activities may be lost if the number of gaming machines is reduced.
It may be said that the report does not propose to ban gaming machines from pubs. It is, however, important to remember that the gambling review body said that, if starting from scratch, it would
"recommend banning all-cash machines from pubs."
By saying that it would be "disproportionate and harsh" to follow through on that now, however, it leaves the door wide open to a ban in future.
Another reason that is offered for restricting the number of all-cash machines in pubs is their accessibility to children and young people. Most people would assume that there was already a restriction on those under 18 years of age; indeed, according to a recent MORI opinion survey, 92 per cent. of machine players in pubs believe that there is a legal age limit for playing. It is a credit to the industry that, in the absence of such a law, it operates a voluntary code restricting use of the machines to the over-18s. There is widespread support inside and outside the industry for legislation to prevent under-18s from playing fruit machines in pubs.
There should be no problem in enforcing such a measure, any more than in enforcing the current restrictions on the sale of alcohol to under-18s. Indeed, the report accepts that, when it states that
"by themselves, all-cash machines in limited numbers are an ancillary activity for pubs and we do not think that it is necessary to insist that a separate licence should be obtained for them. The checks that already exist in relation to the granting of liquor licences are adequate for this purpose."
The dispute therefore centres around the number of all-cash machines that should be allowed. Policing the use of machines to prevent young people from using them illegally would be no more onerous if up to four

73WH
machines were permitted, as suggested by the industry, than it would if only two were allowed, as has been proposed.
Fruit machines are an accepted part of a pub's traditional leisure offering, enjoyed by millions of players. They enjoy a casual gamble while having a pint of beer or other beverage. Why should they be prevented from enjoying what for most people is harmless fun? I support the liberalisation of casinos, but I do not believe that people who want an occasional flutter on an all-cash machine should have to travel to a casino.
According to MORI, three out of four people surveyed are in favour of fruit machines in pubs. I hope that the Government will reject the recommendations that I have pointed out in the gambling review body report, as they will adversely affect pubs as well as clubs. Pubs are a vital part of the community, where people meet for a drink, food, entertainment and company. Many rural pubs are already at risk. We must not compound that situation. I look for any reassurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister can give to my constituents employed in the gaming machine, brewing and pub industries, and to the many hon. Members present who are concerned about this issue.
9.47 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this debate on a subject that is important to many hon. Members and their constituents. I know that many hon. Members want to take part this morning, so I shall be brief.
The hon. Lady has already referred to the potential effects on pubs that implementation of the Budd report would have. That point must be true for every constituency in the country. She has referred to the clubs. Most constituencies have Royal British Legion clubs, constitutional clubs and similar venues, which depend for their survival on the proceeds from gaming machines. That ground has been well covered and will no doubt be covered again this morning, so I mean no disrespect to the people engaged in those concerns when I say that I shall concentrate my remarks on my constituents and the British seaside.
To put the issue in context, Thanet hosts several companies that manufacture or sell amusement-with-prizes machines and gaming machines. They employ significant numbers of people and export to the far east. Those sales have been valuable to this country. They employ significant numbers of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who instigated an earlier debate on the subject. Those are real people in real jobs which are under threat. One of the oldest companies in the country, which has been one of the instigators and developers of much of the machinery that we are discussing, is at this moment fighting for survival. Whether Cromptons will survive, we do not know. Various rumours about its future are circulating.
I do not pretend that Cromptons' problems are entirely due to the Budd report. That is clearly not the case. Any company facing industrial problems must consider several contributory factors. However, the Budd report has destabilised what was a highly successful British industry, exporting British technology
74WH
around the world. It is an absolute tragedy that that success story is now being placed in jeopardy as a result of a reaction to a threat that no longer exists.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I thank the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency adjoins my own, for giving way. I agree with him that the report is not the sole reason for Cromptons' problems, but does he agree that it makes it more difficult for it to find a solution to those problems?
Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The entire industry, not just Cromptons, is now operating in an atmosphere of uncertainty. What investor is likely to come forward in such an atmosphere, until we know the decision on the report's recommendations? I must say to the Minister, on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and my own, that the sooner the matter is resolved satisfactorily, the better.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the worst aspects of the report is that, as the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) mentioned, the research would be carried out over five years, causing uncertainty for constituencies such as mine, which provide the seaside machines? Firms will not invest during that period, and that will affect jobs in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale.)
Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I said to the Minister that the matter must be resolved quickly. We cannot wait for five years—the companies will not be there in five years. It is a moot point whether some of them will be there in five months, so the matter must be resolved quickly. I know that the Minister has heard these arguments before, and that he is not unsympathetic to many of our points. I hope that he will be able to send a clear signal that will stabilise and reassure the market, which is seriously under threat.
What does that threat stem from? I do not suppose that there is a Member present who is not conversant with the ill effects of gambling on young people and the potential for harm. However, the idea that amusement arcades, particularly in their seaside manifestation, are still dens of truants and rent boys and young gamblers stealing to feed a penny-in-the-slot machine habit is nonsense. I am not saying that it was not a problem at one time, but I speak for the arcades in my own constituency along the Margate seafront and in Herne Bay, in saying that it is no longer a problem.
As the Member of Parliament representing the people who run those arcades and those who use them, I am satisfied that in the main—there may be the odd error—they are well run and well managed. They do not provide the sort of haunt and haven that Professor Budd and his colleagues seem desirous of attacking. On the contrary, they are an integral part of British seaside life. It is an acknowledged fact that the sunshine in Margate is not always quite as hot or frequent—
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Surely not.
Mr. Gale: Not always—there is the occasional cloud in the August sky. There is, from time to time, even a drop of rain. On those occasions, entire families seek solace in the amusement arcades.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I rise to speak up for my constituency, because in my experience the holidaymakers flock to our amusement arcades in the hot weather because of their good air-conditioning.
Mr. Gale: I do not want to labour the point. It has been well made.
Chris Ruane: Go on.
Mr. Gale: Do not excite me. Other hon. Members want to speak.
For much of the British seaside, the amusement arcades are a significant proportion of the all-weather facilities. It is a sad fact that there is a lack of investment in the kind of facilities that meet the needs of our climate.
If one removed the seaside arcade from the equation, it is not an exaggeration to say that one would go a long way towards killing what is left of the British seaside. We have suffered our hotels and guesthouses being taken over, first by dole-on-sea claimants and then by asylum seekers. We have seen the bucket and spade holidays go to the sunshine of the Mediterranean. Yet people are still running good reputable businesses—guest houses, pubs and fish and chip shops. People are still selling kiss-me-quick hats, candy floss and seaside rock from seaside bazaars. One cannot remove one bit of that equation without damaging the rest. Another element of uncertainty has been injected into the fate of seaside resorts, as well as into that of machine manufacturers.
Under human rights law, a sentence must be proportionate. Professor Budd has overreacted to a perceived but non-existent threat; the reaction is not proportionate, and the sentence that he proposes would not solve a problem but be a death sentence for the British seaside.
9.55 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour. There are few subjects on which he and I agree; in fact, I can think only of three off hand, and this subject is one of them.
I had a good stab at this subject on 6 November, when I was lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate on it, so I shall be brief and let others contribute. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on winning further time to debate this important subject, which is, economically, a matter of life and death to many of my constituents who work in the industry.
Thanet is the world centre of the penny fall machine industry. Two leading companies in the world are based in Thanet, and they use their United Kingdom business as the bedrock of their business, because the revenue from it pays for their research and development work, which they apply to their machines to sell abroad.
76WH
Without that United Kingdom business, there will be no exports abroad, the legs will be cut from under those businesses, and they will certainly collapse.
Since 6 November, I have had the pleasure of speaking at trade shows and conferences organised by the industry; I have met members of the industry in various forums and have debated the issue in various journals. Throughout that time, I have not heard anyone come up with an argument in support of the Budd recommendations. The only people whom I can find who think that the Budd recommendations about gaming machines and seaside amusement arcades have some merit are those who were involved with the Budd report themselves. No one else has any time for the recommendations, sees any merit in them or can provide evidence to support them; no one can understand what evidence Budd himself had to support them. Perhaps, however, we might find some clues in articles that Alan Budd has written and contributed to since he published his report.
Before I tell my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport about those articles, let me tell him something that Alan Budd was heard to say on a visit to an amusement arcade in London. He stood in front of a fruit machine and said to the owner of the establishment, "I've never played on one of these before—how does it work?" And yet, in articles in the press, he has claimed to be an incipient gambler who used to get lost in seaside arcades as a child and, therefore, understands the problem of gambling from the inside. Only one of those two things can be true: he either knows the problems from the inside or he has never played on one of those machines before. Which is the real Alan Budd who wrote the report?
Mr. Ken Purchase: The one who worked for Thatcher.
Dr. Ladyman: I will not go down that route.
Alan Budd has said:
"When I enter a casino I almost fall over from the flood of adrenaline. It is only by immense self-control that I have not gambled away the house and everything in it."
If he had admitted to this problem earlier, does anyone seriously think that the Government would have put him at the head of a commission on gambling?
Bob Spink: If limits were placed on the machines that could be put in pubs, clubs and arcades at seaside resorts such as those in my constituency on Canvey Island—across the Thames from the hon. Gentleman's—and on the prizes that they could offer, people would be driven towards casinos, where problem gambling can take hold. That would also result in the destruction of those pubs, clubs and arcades. They are the heart of our community, part of the fabric of our society. We should cherish them, not destroy them.
Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right. Nobody in their right mind can believe that the machines that we are discussing, located in seaside arcades, are part of a regime of hard gambling that creates a gambling problem in adult life. If people develop such a problem, it is not because they have spent a wet afternoon in Ramsgate, Broadstairs or Margate playing on a penny fall machine

77WH
for tuppence a time. The use of such machines should not be treated as hard gambling, yet the Budd report recommends that penny fall machines, roulette machines and "Wheel'em ins"—harmless penny amusement machines—should be treated as coin-in, coin-out machines and their use restricted to people over the age of 18. Who, over the age of 18, wants to play on those machines? [HON MEMBERS: "Alan Budd."] Except that Sir Alan probably does not know how they work.
If that was not enough to convince the Minister that he should drop the recommendations, let me give some facts and figures from the Henley report that might convince either him or the Chancellor. The Henley centre believes that, in the short term, implementing the recommendations will result in the family amusement industry losing £20 million per year in revenue and 1,500 full time jobs. If the five-year ban goes ahead, there will be £117 million of revenue losses and 5,000 full-time jobs will be lost, while the Treasury will lose £14 million per year in licence duty, £51 million per year in VAT and £29 million per year in national insurance and PAYE. That is a loss to the Treasury alone of £94 million.
There will not only be a loss to the seaside amusement industry. You would immediately rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I suggested that the Budd report would cost the national lottery's good causes hundreds of millions of pounds, but it will. There are some sensible recommendations in the report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton has said. Equally, there are some barmy ones. Overall, the Budd report could cost the Exchequer as much as £500 million and 15,000 jobs across the country. Surely we cannot countenance that. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, in making his report, to consider those matters carefully. If he comes up with the right recommendation, I can promise him from now on the premium space and the best deckchair on the beach whenever he comes to the seaside. Whatever he does, please will he make his recommendations as quickly as possible, because the uncertainty is already costing jobs and revenue to a vital industry and is adding to the problems of the British seaside.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. As hon. Members will see, there is a demand on time. We have some 30 minutes left because, traditionally, the final 30 minutes of a 90-minute debate are reserved for the Front-Bench spokesmen. Please, will all hon. Members whom I try to fit in be clear, concise and pertinent in their remarks, out of consideration for their colleagues?
10.3 am
Mr. Mark Simmonds: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on having secured the debate. As its MP, I have an interest in the continuing success of Skegness as a traditional family resort. The town has not just relied on its heritage and excellent reputation, but has seen considerable investment, primarily from private individuals who run family businesses for the benefit of other families who come to Skegness to enjoy its facilities. It must be clearly understood that that investment has enabled Skegness to remain at the forefront of the United Kingdom tourist industry. I hope that hon. Members agree that there is a place in a responsible society for controlled gaming, but we must find a regulatory framework that allows companies to
78WH
prosper and create employment and allows those who come to Skegness and other tourist destinations to find pleasure and enjoyment.
The Budd report does not strike the appropriate balance. It is an odd report in that it is contradictory and creates a paradox. It argues that the gambling industry should be liberalised while at the same time proposing to reduce competitiveness by adding unnecessary tiers of restrictions and regulations that will force many seaside arcades out of business. The British Amusement Catering Trades Association is right in saying that amusement arcades are one of the significant attractions of UK tourist resorts, second only to funfairs. They create family entertainment, enabling the family to stay together by providing entertainment for those of all ages, from children in playgroups to adults on gaming machines with large jackpot prizes, in restricted areas. The money from such machines produces the investment that allows the owners of arcades to provide a broader range of services, such as play areas for younger children.
The implementation of the Budd report would change all that. It would drive many adults who enjoy gaming machines away from regulated family arcades into bingo halls, betting offices and other buildings that have gambling licences where children would not be welcome or allowed. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that trivial gambling causes harm, whether it is on low-stake, low-pay-out machines, push machines, cranes or Derby races. Indeed, a recent survey detailed the issues affecting the lives of people under 18 that worried them most. Gambling came 12th. Only 0.6 per cent. of those asked felt that gambling was a significant concern. It might not be a surprise to find that drugs and alcohol were high on the list. Indeed, text messaging and eating junk food came higher up the list than gambling.
If children were banned from arcades, the traditional British family resort would be almost at an end. Where would the family go in Skegness on the rare occasions when the sun is not shining? Such a ban would also have a dramatic impact on the tangential businesses that support amusement arcades, such as electricians and plumbers. It would have serious implications for those employed directly in the amusement arcade business in both full-time and seasonal work. Those employed are often the least skilled and least well educated of our work force and deserve help from hon. Members of all parties. Those workers will be the hardest and first hit by the proposals contained in the Budd report. Many students subsidise their higher education by taking part-time jobs, especially in the summer months, in amusement arcades in Skegness. If the Budd report were implemented, many of those students might not be able to afford higher education and a bar might be created that would prevent those from the poorest backgrounds from having access to higher education.
Any resort must invest to move forward. A lack of investment means that a resort or a business stands still. The length of time that the consultation process is taking is creating a great deal of uncertainty, and the proposals to allow local authorities retrospectively to close arcades or impose a blanket ban on gaming in any particular area will not allow businesses to invest. Businesses need stability and certainty. I ask the Minister to confirm that that recommendation will not be implemented, or at least to say when he will announce

79WH
the results of the consultation process. Otherwise, the disinvestment that will occur will further damage the already greatly challenged UK tourism market.
I will not repeat the arguments about the loss of revenue to the Exchequer, which have been made eloquently. I shall address recommendation 70, which seeks to reduce the potential jackpots in gaming machines in private clubs from £250 to £25. Many clubs survive solely on the profit generated by those machines.
Mr. David Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one organisation most affected by that proposal is the Royal British Legion? Its clubs are hardly dens of iniquity and under-age gambling, and the average age of its members is over 40. They raise tens of thousands of pounds for their local communities every year, but many may be forced to close if recommendation 70 comes into force.
Mr. Simmonds: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and agree with his point. Not only those of the Royal British Legion, but many other community clubs exist as meeting places. They often provide cheaper beer than is available in commercial pubs, which allows the retired generation in particular to get together. They are often the core of a rural community and provide money for charities. In one village in my constituency, Kirton, the profits from a jackpot machine in a private club support the only children's playground in the village. Sometimes money is used for educating members of clubs.
I would like to make further points, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. It was right to hold a gaming review, but it is wrong further to penalise the UK seaside resorts. It is right further to liberalise the UK gaming industry, but it is wrong to destroy family entertainment centres. I understand that the Minister's Department has been swamped by responses to the consultation process. I hope that he will recognise and react to the very strong feeling that has been expressed, and adhere to the points made.
10.11 am
Chris Ruane: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this debate. Hers is an inland constituency, which, like all constituencies, will suffer if many aspects of the Budd report are implemented. However, I think that constituencies with seaside resorts will suffer the most. I notice that many Members of Parliament for such constituencies have taken part in today's debate.
Seaside resorts have suffered tremendously during the past 25 years. Other regions of the UK that have suffered, such as the steel, mining and agricultural communities, have had their heroic struggles well chronicled in books, films and newspaper articles. However, the struggle of seaside communities has not been chronicled, although it is an equally noble struggle. Perhaps that is because we are literally on the periphery of the country and do not have a union or united voice to represent us.
Local arcade operators in my constituency have informed me that the Budd report's recommendations would be the death knell of seaside towns such as Rhyl
80WH
and Prestatyn. We have heard the statistics: 14,000 jobs will go and £550 million of Treasury income will be lost. Tim Batstone of HB Leisure, a very successful arcade operator in my constituency, estimates that he will lay off 130 workers in the short term and 300 in the long term. That will mainly be in the ward of Rhyl West, the most poverty-stricken of the 850 council wards in Wales.
The effect on my community will be devastating. There will be a human cost, in terms of job losses, and also an environmental cost. On the west parade in my home town of Rhyl, half the old Victorian buildings are now derelict. The other half are currently arcades, brightly lit and well maintained and presented. They, too, will soon fall into dereliction if the Budd report is implemented in full. The knock-on effect on the local economy could be considerable, with a loss in rates and a drastic reduction in the number of visitors to Rhyl.
The part of the Budd report that most concerns the arcade operators and me is its proposal to ban children from arcades, even with parental supervision, which smacks of Big Brother, and "we know best". There is a move by Alan Budd to stop the cheap tuppenny games. Sir Alan Budd believes that such games have a corrupting influence on young people. He recommends a five-year study, which we welcome, but he is prejudging its results and implementing his changes from the outset.
Research needs to take place, and we would all welcome it. Existing research from the British gambling prevalence study 2000 shows that, on the whole, British people are a nation of responsible gamblers. Perhaps that is so because, at an early age, we have spent our tuppences with parental support in a controlled environment, and have developed a responsible attitude to gambling.
My main concern is the effect on seaside towns, but a further worry is the effect on military clubs such as the Royal British Legion, Royal Air Forces Association and Royal Naval Association clubs, on political clubs—perhaps we should declare an interest—such as Conservative, Labour and constitutional clubs, and on social clubs. Many clubs in the poorest areas, especially in my constituency, will fold unless they can make money from gaming machines.
We have heard many opinions expressed. Aspects of Sir Alan Budd's report have united all political parties in one voice. That is unique in Parliament. However, although many aspects of the report are good and sensible, many of its proposals, particularly those that pertain to seaside resorts and registered members' clubs, should be extinguished at the earliest date. Uncertainty is undermining registered members' clubs and seaside resorts, which have suffered so terribly in the past. Those resorts need help, not a kick in the teeth, which is what Sir Alan Budd is offering. I ask the Minister to listen to pleas from all quarters and end the uncertainty as soon as possible.
10.17 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I will be brief. I wish to reinforce the comments made by other hon. Members.
I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party group on non-profit-making members' clubs. I recognise, as I am sure do all hon. Members, that the gaming machine

81WH
industry and non-profit-making clubs are irrevocably interlinked. The fortunes of the private clubs have a great effect on the fortunes of the gaming machine industry—clubs are a major customer of the industry. As the Minister knows, well over 20,000 private non-profit-making clubs in this country will be savagely affected should recommendation 70 come into play.
The Royal British Legion will be one of the biggest sufferers. The term "non-profit-making clubs" means that profits from machines go back to help members and local communities and provide comfort for those less well off or less well supported in the community. There are more than 20 non-profit-making clubs of all types and of different memberships in my constituency. They will be severely affected should recommendation 70 be introduced.
The Minister will remember that I asked him a parliamentary question in October about the number of representations that he had received from clubs and their members. He admitted that more than 1,500 clubs or members had written to him expressing concern about the effects of recommendation 70. He also knows that the organisations that represent such clubs nationally are desperately worried about the future of working men's clubs, social clubs, military clubs, the Royal British Legion, and, of course, political clubs. My local Conservative club in Eastleigh has written to me. It is desperately concerned that it will be forced to close if high-payment gaming machines are removed. I know that the Minister is a fair man. Given the average age of Conservative party members these days, he would hate to take away the old codgers' last bit of enjoyment.
The Minister has been gracious enough to listen to the views of the all-party group on non-profit-making members' clubs and the association that represents the clubs. He knows the issues well and I would like him to confirm that private, non-profit making clubs are an essential part of our community and social fabric. He has the chance to tell us that they will be exempted from a regulation that would destroy the very nature of an essential part of our society.
10.20 am
Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow a fellow chartered civil engineer, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). We both know the importance of foundations and structures. In this debate, it is important to recognise the linkages between each facet of the industry.
I want to concentrate on the importance of the seaside, but I will not rehearse the weather forecasts that we have heard from such delightful places as Skegness, Margate, South Thanet, Great Yarmouth—
Chris Ruane: And Rhyl.
Lawrie Quinn: And Rhyl. The best place, and the place where the seaside industry was founded, is Scarborough. On behalf of my community, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the tremendous work he did in laying key foundations to help the regeneration of the seaside while he was at the Department of Trade and Industry and the former Department of the
82WH
Environment, Transport and the Regions. That important work led to my community being established as an objective 2 area.
An engineer's view of what confronts us would be simple. The Government are taking a long time to determine their response to the Budd report and, therefore, we face a blight on the industry at every level. I reiterate my previous invitations to the Minister to come to the front at Scarborough and do what Sir Alan Budd was not prepared to do: meet the many families who run businesses there. They cannot invest in their businesses because they are unsure of their direction.
The Budd report offers opportunities as well as challenges for the seaside community. The direction of the regeneration for which the Minister was responsible in seaside communities such as Scarborough and Whitby links to the possibilities for developing a casino-like culture in places such as Scarborough. I have a vision, which many of my constituents share, of turning Scarborough perhaps not into the Las Vegas of the north, but into something like the Monte Carlo of the north. I notice that my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), knows exactly what I mean. The beauty of the area is very similar to that of Monte Carlo. He represents the good people of Filey, so he will know that a casino in Scarborough, as well as suitable hotel development, could bring about the Minister's vision.
My simple message to the Minister from the many people who work in the seaside community in Scarborough is that he would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater by taking up the proposals on seaside gambling in the Budd report. The North sea is very grey and cold even at the best times of the year. Prosperity could be increased for many people in my community and I am here to try to bring that about. If it does not happen, my community will be blighted and things will be bleak.
At the earliest opportunity—today would be great—will the Minister please say that he is prepared to put to one side the proposals relating to the seaside community and gambling, which is the only way to go until we have some effective research? We must end the blight and bring about prosperity for the seaside, especially for my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby.
10.25 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I shall be brief and try not to reiterate the excellent points that have been made both by hon. Members who represent seaside communities and by those whose constituencies are inland. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate.
I should like to place on record my congratulations to the industry, which has completely changed its image in the past 20 years. Restricting access and improving policing have enhanced the quality of the environment in amusement arcades. I cannot remember the last time that I read in my local newspaper of a problem in an amusement arcade, whereas 20 years ago there were regular reports of incidents. The industry should be congratulated on getting its act together to provide true family entertainment and amusement.

83WH
One issue that has not been raised is that of piers. We talk a lot in this place about reforming peers, but I am talking about piers. Piers are run with amusements, and we want to retain the great British pier. Most of us who represent seaside resorts have a pier in our constituencies, and some constituencies contain two or more of them. I hope that the Minister will take it on board that piers are an integral part of the seaside and the traditional British holiday, and that they are threatened by the legislation. I know that he is no stranger to seaside resorts because he has visited my constituency in the past, and he is always welcome to come again. He would not need to bring an umbrella because my constituency is in the English riviera.
As others have said, if some of the recommendations in the report were accepted they would cost jobs. They would not kill the holiday industry in British seaside resorts because we have many other attractions, but we must offer a package, of which amusement arcades are a part. Amusement arcades are an integral part of the British seaside holiday experience, and we do not want to see them go.
10.27 am
Mr. Ivan Henderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing today's debate. I shall speak briefly.
I want to impress on the Minister the effects that the five-year review is having on my constituency. Pavilion plc, one of the arcade owners in my area, intended to invest an extra £3 million in Pier avenue, but it has put that on hold because it cannot wait for five years. No one will give it investment and support because there is no certainty that there will be arcades in the area after five years. I stress the importance of the five-year review, and I, too, should like my right hon. Friend to make a statement as soon as possible on whether it is going ahead.
I remember hon. Members' campaigns for seaside resorts, and it was only in 2000 that we called on the Chancellor to help seaside resorts in his Budget. I shall read an extract from the Budget report 2002, in which we received a good response from him on the concerns raised about seaside resorts and arcades. The report says:
"The removal of the £645 annual licence charge on small-prize 'amusement with prizes' machines (AWPs), costing 10 pence per play or less, will provide a boost to seaside arcades, and will help to support the Government's 'Tomorrow's Tourism' initiative, aimed at reviving traditional seaside resorts."
The Chancellor is giving and Budd is taking away. We cannot afford some of the report's recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) mentioned an article. I wish to draw Members' attention to an article in Coinslot International, which is a publication for the traders who operate the arcades and machines. It says that Sir Alan Budd's problem is alleged to have stemmed from boyhood, specifically time spent in amusement arcades during holiday visits to the seaside. It says:
"The experience has clearly imprinted on Budd a protective attitude towards fruit machines, of which he is quoted: 'Machines are the most addictive form of gambling. The best way to trap someone is with machines. They are designed to be addictive."'
84WH
The banning of non-monetary prizes could be taken to an extreme. I am sure that we can all remember going into a shop and paying for a lucky dip, and how disappointed we were that we did not get what we wanted from it. One might take the ban even further. How many Members, when they were younger, paid to see Father Christmas, sat on his knee, asked for all sorts of things and did not get what they wanted at the end?
Is Budd saying that we should not play because we may get a prize at the end that we do not want, or because it may trap people in gambling? That is ridiculous. It is an idea that should be put to bed straight away so that we can safeguard the future of arcades. It is ridiculous to think that every time a young child spends a penny or two and gets a prize he will be trapped into a gambling habit.
For years, arcades in my constituency have regulated themselves. They do not allow under-18s into certain areas, and they have people on the doors who ensure that children do not go into arcades during school term and question them if they try to. Such regulation is already in place; the Budd report goes too far. We should ensure that our seaside resorts are maintained, and we should accept that arcades are part of their proud history.
10.32 am
Nick Harvey: The Government were right to conduct a review of the industry's regulations. It is an important industry, contributing some £42 billion a year to the UK economy and retaining a relatively modest £7 billion. Some of the proposals in the Budd report will find favour with the industry, punters and society generally. However, some parts of it contribute to an incoherent, contradictory and potentially damaging whole.
A main impetus for the review was that the Treasury was licking its lips about the prospects of regulating and taxing internet gambling. I have no objection to the Government doing that, but, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said, there is a potential downside in terms of Government revenues. The perceived benefit to the Treasury could easily be wiped out if we were to accept the package as a whole.
Hon. Members have already made the point that the incidence of problem gambling in the UK is not very high, certainly in comparison with other countries. There is something rather perverse about the report. It attacks and undermines some traditional British forms of gambling, which we know do not create serious problems with social gambling. At the same time, it seeks to espouse and permit the growth of huge Las Vegas-style casinos. We know that America and Australia, where that is a far more typical part of gambling, have a far greater problem with dependent gambling. In Australia, for example, 2.5 per cent. of people have problems with gambling, and gambling addicts are estimated to cost the Australian community more than 5.5 billion Australian dollars a year.
The situation is extraordinary. Our industry does not give us problem gambling, and we may undermine all its essential and traditional characteristics. However,

85WH
the same report proposes to allow the type of gambling that has contributed to problems in America and Australia.
Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned France, where a gaming machine regime has been instituted similar to that proposed by Budd. In France, the problem with gambling is people who are shot by gangsters for not buying their gaming machines from the right set of criminals.
Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is another that the Minister will have to consider when he decides how to respond to the proposals.
When we debated the subject in this Chamber in November, most of the speeches were about the impact that the proposals would have on social clubs, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) referred to this morning. Such clubs were quick off the mark with their lobbying, and it is clear that they made an impression on hon. Members from all parties. The Minister has acute political antennae, so he will have picked up on that. Were I a betting man, I would wager a small sum on his not accepting the burden of that recommendation.
Today, hon. Members from all parties have expressed loud and clear their belief that damage would be caused to seaside resorts if the Budd recommendations went through. Almost all those resorts are economically fragile. I know that myself, as north Devon has several seaside resorts that are in serious trouble. Amusement arcades are an integral part of the package of seaside resorts, so I urge the Government to think long and hard before going down the suggested route.
Similarly, the recommendations on pubs could be extremely damaging. It seems self-contradictory to offer local authorities, which are to be the licensing authorities, the prospect of draconian blanket bans on all forms of gambling yet not allow them to exercise common sense on how many machines should be allowed in different pubs. Pubs can come in different sizes, so a one-size-fits-all solution to the number of machines allowed in them does not seem logical.
If the Government decide to accept the Budd recommendations about allowing large-scale use of machines in casinos, they must be aware of what will happen. Most of the bingo clubs will turn into casinos overnight. The image that the public have of casinos—with smooth Roger Moore-type figures in black bow ties playing the roulette tables—will bear no resemblance to what will follow. I do not say that I am morally or implacably opposed to allowing larger-scale machine gaming halls—that is exactly what they will be—but I urge the Government not to allow them to operate in an uncontrolled way. They should leave in place certain brakes and controls to prevent them from getting out of hand.
Hon. Members from all over the country and all points on the political spectrum have spoken. Clearly, they have many serious worries and reservations. I am glad that the Government have taken the time to absorb the burden of the lobbying that has taken place and the representations that have been made. If they introduce a White Paper or Green Paper on the subject in the next
86WH
few months, I hope that they will treat the Budd report in an à-la-carte fashion. They should pick the good bits from it and ignore the bad, because if they took it as a whole, the result would be complete disaster.
10.38 am
Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate, and on providing a further opportunity for the House to consider the implications of the Budd review for the future of the gaming machine industry and the importance of the income generated from gaming machines to several organisations. She set out clearly her constituency interest, as 500 local jobs depend on the gaming machine industry, and advanced a logical, coherent and powerful argument against a number of the Budd recommendations, which have caused such dismay and uncertainty throughout the industry.
The hon. Lady's thoughts were echoed by all the other speakers in the debate: my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), and the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Indeed, the hon. Member for Eastleigh gave the best example of how desperate people have become when he told us of the Conservative club that felt it necessary to write to a Liberal Democrat Member. One could not wish for greater evidence.
No one doubts that a review of gambling legislation was overdue. The regulation of casinos, internet gambling, the future of betting shops and the permitted mix of alcohol and gambling in various locations were all issues that needed to be addressed, and they needed to be considered against the background of a growth in leisure time and more relaxed attitudes generally. The Budd report, however, found difficulties in areas where no one had seen much of problem beforehand.
Sir Alan's thinking was so out of line with the industry view, and I shall quote again from the Coinslot interview. This comment says even more than those quoted by other hon. Members. He says of BACTA members,
"This will destroy us, they complain."
He continued:
"What they don't understand is that the alternative proposal is not to leave things as they are but to abolish it completely."
There we have it: we should abolish seaside arcades and jackpot machines in clubs and public houses. Many in the industry realise the scale of the threat. There is strong reason to doubt whether the existing regime for the availability and regulation of gaming machines was a matter of concern when the Budd report was commissioned. I do not recall it being so. If there was a problem, it was that the existing framework was too restrictive.
I was constantly lobbied as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet, and when I had the gambling brief as Home Affairs spokesman when the Home Office had that responsibility. I was often told that the number of

87WH
machines allowed in betting shops and bingo halls was too restrictive, and that the 100 local authorities that had banned all cash machines in a number of locations were being to restrictive.
There can be no doubt that the industry is deeply shocked by the Budd recommendations on clubs and seaside amusement arcades. We understand that the Minister will need time to respond in detail. I sympathise with him; it is a huge report with many recommendations. However, it is equally clear that the Budd report has generated huge uncertainty within the industry. Although it is not the only cause of decline in machine sales—I understand that sales of jackpot machines fell by about 27 per cent. between 1990 and 2000—it seems to have caused a major acceleration. In the quarter ending 30 June 2001, 1,509 machines were sold, but that number fell to only 1,235 in the quarter ending 31 December 2001. That is a further decline of 18 per cent. Yet, as many hon. Members said, the industry is one in which we have long led the world in ingenuity.
Some jackpot machines are too complex for some of the older members of clubs, which may be another reason for the decline in income in some clubs. That all impinges on the fact that if they lose that income altogether, they will be in real difficulty. I have considered the matter in considerable detail, and I would argue that the case has not been made for the Budd recommendations on jackpot machines or on how they might affect the seaside. Many hon. Members have said loud and clear that no one outside the review body has a good word to say for the recommendations, and I praise the views of the hon. Member for South Thanet.
At the BACTA conference in November, I made clear the Conservative view that we should leave alone the current regime of jackpot machines in clubs. Similarly, we believe that proposals to restrict machines in pubs to two are hard to fathom. Imposing such restrictions at the seaside is illogical given that there has been no research on their effect on tourism or on whether there is a problem with under-age gambling. It undermines the credibility of the recommendations. In our view, the solution—which Budd proposes—is a prohibition on under-18s playing jackpot or all-cash machines, regardless of their location. There must be a presumption that the proprietor will enforce that prohibition.
I concede that it is perhaps easy for the Opposition to take that view, but the strength of argument suggests that it is time to end the uncertainty. Every speaker has said loud and clear that businesses and jobs are at stake. I attend 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall with the Minister for Sport or his colleague the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting once a fortnight, but attendance has never been as good as it is now. That shows how concerned Members are about their constituency interests.
The general philosophy behind the Budd recommendations appears to be that ambient gambling should be discouraged and that gambling should be increasingly concentrated in premises that are dedicated to that purpose. It is, however, time to move the debate on and to ask whether that approach will create an industry and a gambling environment with which
88WH
society feels more comfortable. Increasingly, I do not believe that it will, and I am becoming less and less convinced that the wholesale deregulation that Budd advocates is necessary.
Many in the industry who would benefit in the short term from Budd's proposed deregulation of casinos and amusement centres worry that we may see a massive expansion of casinos or so-called outlets—the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) stole my best line. Such outlets do not reflect the James Bond image of spending a luxury night out at a casino with—we can thank Budd for this recommendation, and there is nothing wrong with it—a glass of champagne in hand. Instead, we shall see wall-to-wall gaming machines in sheds that could be described only as gambling warehouses. It is a sad irony, however, that the machines in those premises will not benefit our manufacturers, because they will most likely be imported from the United States of America.
I want to give the Minister ample time to respond, so I shall conclude by advocating a cautious step-by-step approach to implementing those parts of the Budd report—I have alluded to some of them—that the Government support and for which there would be genuine all-party support. At the same time, when deciding the appropriate response to Budd's thinking on the gaming machine environment, the Government must keep in mind the old saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it—I apologise that that is one of the most commonly used lousy cliches in our debates, but I could not think of a better one.
The debate has been a good opportunity to make it clear that the industry is convinced that the Budd report would wreak havoc on a range of legitimate businesses, and the Minister now has a good opportunity to respond.
10.48 am
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Mr. Cook, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on initiating this very good debate, which, as she said, is our second debate on the Budd report. Both debates have homed in clearly on the significance of the review and of the gaming machine industry. I acknowledge that there is concern, which has also been reflected in the number of hon. Members from across the House who signed the early-day motion.
If I may, Mr. Cook, I shall—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the second time the Minister has referred to me as Mr. Cook, although other hon. Members have done so, too. I would be failing in my duty if I did not call attention to the fact that the House—in its wisdom or otherwise—has decided that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel should be referred to as Deputy Speakers in this Chamber. As a senior member of the panel, I should point that out.
Mr. Caborn: Please accept my humble apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I have offended the House, or indeed the Chair.
In considering the reason for commissioning the Budd report, we need to look back to the mid-1960s when the last relevant legislation was put on the statute

89WH
book. I remind hon. Members of the reason for that measure; it was driven, to a great extent, by criminality and the laundering of money through various gambling outlets, particularly casinos. The Budd report has originated from a different perspective—the acknowledgement of the fact that information is now passed around electronically. If we are to continue as a major centre of the gambling industry globally we shall need primary legislation. The law requires the person who places a bet to be in the place where the bet is made, so electronic gambling is illegal. The stimulus for the Budd report was to a large extent the internet and the electronic movement of information.
I want to make it clear to the House that we do not intend to damage an industry which, as has already been mentioned, has something like a £42 billion stake, and contributes marginally less than £2 billion to the Exchequer. The number of people employed in the industry, and the location of that employment, which tends to be seaside resorts, are important considerations for the Government.
If anything, we want modernisation along with deregulation to move gambling into mainstream leisure. In view of the restrictions under the Gaming Act 1968, which were introduced for the reasons I explained, we now believe that that is the right approach. There has been significant change. It is interesting that there has not been much opposition to gambling in this debate. A decade ago, the atmosphere would probably have been quite different. It is significant that about 70 per cent. of the population now gamble through the lottery.
That cultural change has led to the acceptance of gambling as part of leisure and there is now an opportunity to move gambling into mainstream leisure. There are several reasons to do so, including employment and inward investment. Also, I have been struck, as someone who was not an expert on gambling—people would probably say that I am still not; they might compare me to Alan Budd—by the integrity of the gambling industry in the United Kingdom. That is important when we consider global gambling and wonder where internet gambling will find its base in the future. We must take such issues into consideration in evaluating the Budd report.
Governments are criticised for consulting and for not consulting. On the present important issue, we wanted the Budd report and three months of consultation; about 3,000 representations have been made and the matter is being considered. I gave the House an assurance that we would respond by the end of March or the beginning of April. We are on course according to our timetable and will do that, assuming that my colleagues in other Departments do not raise other major issues. We have tried to bring certainty to the consultations in setting out a clear timetable. I am hopeful that we shall be able to adhere to it.
It is important to eliminate uncertainty. I have come to this House from industry, where uncertainty is an expensive commodity. Several hon. Members have pointed out the effect of uncertainty on the gambling machine industry. I give an assurance that we have kept to the timetable and will deliver on it.
Several hon. Members have raised the issue of the protection of children and vulnerable people with regard to gaming machines. One must acknowledge that
90WH
in the UK, the incidence of abuse in gaming is very low indeed relative to other countries. Again, the integrity of the industry shines through—but it is right for Budd to raise the question of ambient gambling and vulnerability.
The industry has responded in an effective and responsible way to the Budd proposals on setting up a voluntary trust to consider how organisations such as GamCare can be funded and to conduct research. Just under £1 million has been raised by the industry on a voluntary basis, and that is to be welcomed. I met several people yesterday about the trust and I hope that it will develop.
It has also been interesting to find that it is an aspect of British culture that we allow our children to play slot machines. Almost every other country in the world forbids that. However, we have all been brought up with it and we acknowledge it. For the past 20 years I have spent my summer holidays in the UK. If I were to approach the report in the objective manner in which some Members have described the weather in our seaside resorts this morning, I would probably produce a rather perverse analysis of it. Nevertheless, Members or Parliament, particularly those who represent seaside constituencies, must promote their areas as strongly as possible.
We must give serious consideration to the five-year timetable that has been laid down for the further review of the industry. We have received strong representations on that. To return to my earlier point, I do not believe that such timetables should be left hanging over industry because they build in uncertainty. We must take on board the comments that have been made and factor them in clearly, trying wherever possible to remove those uncertainties.
The review resulted in a number of recommendations, the arguments around which have been well rehearsed here today. We have heard what the industry has to say and listened to Members' representations, and we will factor those into our final decision. We do not want to damage any of the resorts; we want to build them up. We want them to move gambling into mainstream leisure, and that will be our approach as we evaluate the Budd recommendations and Members' comments.
On jackpot machines and the proposal to reduce the maximum jackpot from £250 to £25, I can only repeat what I have said on previous occasions. I am president of a trades and labour club in Sheffield. I walked into the club at 9.30 one Sunday evening and found four secretaries of local working men's clubs. One of my colleagues said, "They've come to see you, Richard." They did not quite resort to the vernacular, but they made their position very clear indeed. I thanked them, and they did not buy me a drink. They spoke very forcefully, and we are taking that into consideration.
I have made a statement in the House to the effect that we are also factoring in the fact that many clubs play a major role in the social infrastructure of their communities. That has been forcefully expressed. I met the all-party group on non-profit-making clubs, and we will factor in all those considerations.
The overall industry response has been quite positive. We were right to take up the Budd report. Budd has done a good job in bringing several areas into the 21st century, which was necessary. The industry's response

91WH
was quite predictable. It wants to see some recommendations implemented, but rejects others. Overall, the report gives us a firm foundation on which to build.
I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) about casinos, and I take them seriously. We must be careful as we proceed with the legislation. We want to deregulate, and to allow the industry to grow, but we do not want it to lose its integrity. We have seen how some countries have deregulated too fast, and it is difficult to pull back when that has happened.
We need to allow the creativity of the industry to flourish in a framework in which change can be managed. In respect of casinos, we must ensure that we do not deregulate at a pace that cannot be managed properly and would damage the industry.
I have heard what hon. Members have said. The debate has been a good one, and I take on board all the points that have been made. The main point is that we shall try to meet the timetable that I gave at the beginning, and I hope that that will remove the uncertainty from the future.

Elder Abuse
11 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject, which seems almost taboo in this country, both because it is hard to get any reliable statistics to measure the extent of the abuse and because many remain in denial about the existence of such abuse. However, the evidence that does exist suggests that elder abuse happens on a scale that requires a significant shift in Government thinking and a change in professional practice.
Let us start by defining our terms. Action on Elder Abuse, an organisation that campaigns on the issue, defines elder abuse as
"a single or repeated act or lack of appropriate action occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person."
The charity goes on to define five main types of abuse.
They are:
"Physical: for example, hitting, slapping, burning, pushing, restraining or giving too much medication or the wrong medication…Psychological: for example, shouting, swearing, frightening, blaming, ignoring or humiliating a person…Financial: for example, the illegal or unauthorised use of a person's property, money, pension book or other valuables…Sexual: for example, forcing a person to take part in any sexual activity without his or her consent—this can occur in any relationship…Neglect: for example, where a person is deprived of food, heat, clothing or comfort or essential medication."
Given those definitions, how widespread is elder abuse? Action on Elder Abuse offers evidence in its report entitled "Listening is not enough", which states that in the first two years of its national freephone service, more than one in four of the calls were about abuse in care homes. That figure should be set in context: just one in 20 older people live in care homes, and that pattern has continued beyond the first two years of the service. Research has also found that abuse increases with age.
Will the Minister tell us whether the Department has any plans to commission a national study of the level of elder abuse so that we can get a clear fix on the scale of the problem, not only in formal care settings but in the community at large? Such research is long overdue; research in the United States of America, commissioned by the US Congress, confirmed that the reported level of abuse in that country was merely the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that the findings would prove the same in this country, too.
I want to raise four concerns, of which I have given the Minister notice. The first relates to the resources available to the National Care Standards Commission to do its job properly. In 1983 there were eight nursing homes per inspector; in 1999 there were 20 homes per inspector.
The second issue is the low number of trained staff and the limited target set for raising the level of training. Currently, only two in 10 care staff have recognised qualifications. The Government have set the target that by 2005, half of care home staff should have NVQ2.

93WH
Thirdly, there is no offence of neglect of a vulnerable adult, and there is no legal means of dealing with informed consent when people no longer have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Fourthly, standards of medication for older people are inadequate.
The resources available to the National Care Standards Commission are the subject of the first of my concerns. The British Medical Journal published a paper last year on the quality of care in the private sector and in national health service facilities for people with dementia. Using a system of evaluation based on dementia care mapping, researchers from the Institute for Ageing and Health came to the conclusion that the quality of care needed radical improvement or much improvement in all homes, and that
"no home showed even a fair standard of care."
Research revealed that in a six-hour daytime period, 60 per cent. of the time was spent asleep, socially withdrawn or not actively engaged in any form of basic or constructive activity. Only 50 minutes was spent talking or communicating in other ways with staff or residents, and less than than 12 minutes was spent actively engaged in everyday constructive activities. This is not about room sizes or the width of doorways; it is about the quality of the life experience of the residents in those care homes. As the researchers emphasised, inspection teams do not use direct observation, so how can they fully evaluate the care environment of older people?
In 1983 there were 28,000 nursing home beds. That increased sevenfold to 196,000 by 1999. In the same period, the number of inspectors increased from 100 to 300. The human resources available to carry out the meaningful inspection of care homes, and residential and nursing homes, is a serious cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can spell out in detail today some of the issues that I have raised in written parliamentary questions to which I have not yet received an answer, including details about the establishment of the National Care Standards Commission and the ratios that the Government hope to achieve for all care settings.
That is not the only concern. On 29 January the Minister wrote to the chair of the National Care Standards Commission, Anne Parker, with guidance on the implementation of regulations and national minimum standards. What message was the Minister trying to send? Certainly, the message received by groups such as the Coalition for Quality in Care was that the Minister condoned low standards, particularly in the physical environment, for an unacceptably long period. What message does that send to care home owners who already comply with or exceed the national minimum standards? What message does it send to care home residents? As the Institute for Ageing and Health demonstrated in its British Medical Journal paper, it is not good enough to limit the scope of the commission's work to the prevention of "dangerous and unsafe practice." As if to underline that point, Counsel and Care, another charity, published a report last month entitled "Showing Restraint", which makes depressing reading.
All restraints, used inappropriately, are an affront to the dignity of older people. They create barriers between the residents and the staff taking care of them. They
94WH
undermine residents' confidence and autonomy. They emphasise the power of staff and the powerlessness of residents. They promote incontinence and dependency. In some cases they increase the risk of injury and death. Examples of restraint include removing a person's walking aid, setting a heavy table in front of a resident's chair to stop them getting up, and tightly tucking in blankets, which can immobilise a resident as effectively as straps.
A care home becomes abusive to its residents when the convenience of the staff is a greater priority than the dignity and well-being of the people in their care. Neither I nor Counsel and Care claim that elder abuse happens in every care home or care setting. There are many dedicated home owners and care home staff who do a challenging job, often in difficult circumstances, but that should not be an excuse for not turning the spotlight on this issue.
Far too prevalent is the insidious abuse experienced by residents because of poor standards and low expectations of the sort recorded by the Institute for Ageing and Health in its BMJ paper. I wrote to the institute to test whether it was confident about its findings and believed that they were representative of a wider problem. It confirmed that that was its strong view, but said that there was a need for further research to underpin the evidence produced by the original research.
Just as care home residents can become institutionalised, so too can the staff, accepting poor standards and tolerating bad practice. Will the Minister give a clear guarantee that the National Care Standards Commission has the necessary human resources to get to grips with the issues surrounding the quality of life in care homes and other care settings and to undertake even an abbreviated form of the recorded observation used by the Institute for Ageing and Health? If the commission is to focus on preventing dangerous and unsafe practice, how will the poor standards and low expectations reported by the BMJ be tackled?
That brings me to my second concern—the training of care staff and the status of elderly care. As long ago as 1997, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting said that it was concerned about the increasing number of cases that it saw involving abuse of older people. In the year 1999–2000, more than one in four cases of misconduct by nurses involved nurses in nursing homes. Action on Elder Abuse also found that as many as three out of four alleged abusers were care workers or nurses.
Those figures, set against the findings of a study by the university of Paisley, which examined the attitudes of nurses and health care professionals to nursing the elderly, paint a disturbing picture. That research found that the care of the elderly is given the lowest status among care professionals. Elderly care is seen by many of those surveyed by Paisley university as a place to put staff who cannot do anything else. That is not my view; those are not my words. That was the result of the research.
Poor quality is frequently, but not always, associated with low fee levels which lead, in turn, to reduced staff levels, higher staff turnover and poorly trained staff. Low levels of training and high staff turnover are a serious cause for concern. In a recent debate on the state

95WH
of the care system, I referred to a statement by the Association for Residential Care. It said—and this time I shall complete the quote:
"With some supermarkets offering £8 per hour to stock shelves overnight it is hard to attract staff to a complex and often stressful job for much less money. In some parts of the country the only people applying for vacancies are those that Mcdonald's and Tesco have already rejected and, if employed, they come with high numeracy and literacy training needs, quite apart from any induction training and value based training needs."
Numeracy and literacy training needs are an issue for many care home providers. There are many thousands of dedicated people working in the sector, and their work is often overlooked and undervalued. Good staff really make a difference to the lives of the people they care for. Nevertheless, the economics of care are such that the pool of people willing to work in the care home sector is small and lacking in basic skills.
Inspections rely on good record keeping, so the skills gap must be closed, to ensure that the records can be relied on to give a true picture. Most hands-on care is provided by care assistants with limited or no formal training. It is disturbing to know that research in the United States has shown a strong and clear link between the level of abuse in a care home and the level of training. As Counsel and Care points out, the attitude of staff to residents can hugely affect the degree of freedom and choice that the residents enjoy. Standard 28 of the national minimum standards published last year for care homes sets the target of a minimum of 50 per cent. of members of care staff trained to NVQ2 level or equivalent, to be achieved by 2005. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that there will be no relaxation of that target, and that enforcement action will follow swiftly if it is not met? There can be no sliding on that standard.
My third area of concern is the legal protection of older people in care. The law continues to deny legal rights to people who are judged by others to lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves; they are not only denied proper legal status as autonomous individuals, but many areas of law simply ignore their existence. For example, under the Mental Health Act 1983, it is assumed that people who make no attempt to discharge themselves from hospital have consented to informal detention as patients. Who has authority? How is capacity defined? How can people with mental impairments, such as dementia, be enabled to participate in decisions affecting their lives?
The current "all or nothing" approach whereby authority is passed to those claiming power of attorney, or professionals giving health care and legal advice, will no longer do. Common law recognises that third parties must act in someone's best interests, but incapacitated people's best interests are about more than managing money or rationing services to meet their care needs. We must ensure that they have a decent quality of life, that they can express their needs and emotions, and that they are treated with respect as autonomous individuals.
The Government have shied away from reform in this area, despite promises of legislation year after year. The rights to life, privacy and family life under the Human Rights Act must be given real form; the legislation that has been lying around for too long in the Lord
96WH
Chancellor's Department needs to be brought forward. In particular, it is time to introduce a new statutory offence to cover abuse of vulnerable adults. Why is there no such offence on the statute books?
My final area of concern is the inappropriate use of medication in care homes. Last December I published a report entitled "Keep taking the medicine?", which examined the evidence for over-medication and inappropriate medication of older people in care homes. The report drew on parliamentary answers and on an extensive review of both domestic and international research evidence. It concluded that antipsychotic medication was being used inappropriately to "chemically manage" some residents in care homes. The report called for action and set out seven recommendations, including more frequent reviews of medication in care homes, better documentation of prescribing, tougher requirements for the proportion of trained staff, and a change in the law governing informed consent.
Since its publication, the report has sparked considerable interest, and has resulted in a wide range of care professionals contacting me to express support for its findings and recommendations. When it was published I sent a copy to the Secretary of State for Health, and I look forward to receiving a letter setting out the Government's response.
The over-medication of elderly people is a form of abuse that can result in death, and denies them their dignity. The consequences of over-medication have been studied extensively and have been well reported. Despite that evidence, poor practice has persisted in the United Kingdom, and the prescription of antipsychotic medicine has continued to rise. Over the past 20 years concern has grown about the inappropriate use of antipsychotic medication in the care of the elderly, and drugs that were developed for one purpose have been switched to other purposes.
Although antipsychotic medication has beneficial effects in some cases, a succession of studies both in this country and abroad have demonstrated that the level of prescription greatly exceeds the number of elderly people exhibiting conditions that are treatable by such drugs. Research suggests that about 10 per cent. of residents in care homes have psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations and paranoid ideas, but about 30 per cent. of residents in care homes are regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication. If that pattern were repeated in England alone, more than 35,000 residents in nursing homes, and possibly as many as 53,500 elderly people in residential homes, would be kept in a state of sedation for no medical reason.
Elderly people with dementia are particularly at risk, and having to manage challenging behaviour without trained staff is no excuse for relying on chemical solutions. International evidence suggests that annual reviews of prescription for elderly people, as proposed in the national service framework, would be inadequate, and that harm can be done to people in far less than a year. Successive studies have consistently called for change. The chemical management of elderly people is an unacceptable scandal, because it denies them their dignity and their quality of life.
I hope that the Minister can tell us more about what the Government are going to do, not least about increasing the frequency of medication reviews. Will she

97WH
undertake an awareness campaign targeted at care staff and GPs to ensure that over-medication is recognised and stamped out?
Elder abuse casts a sinister shadow over the care system and beyond. Elder abuse is more of a taboo than child abuse, and our attitude to it seems to be years behind our achievements in tackling child abuse. The national service framework for elderly people and the national minimum standards published last year are steps in the right direction, but more steps need to be taken. Without extra resources and law reform, elder abuse will remain hidden, and its victims will be dead and buried.
11.17 am
Paul Flynn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on obtaining today's debate, and on his energetic, creative and intelligent campaigning; the House owes him a debt of gratitude.
The first thing that strikes one about this morning's debate is that it has attracted only one Back Bencher, although Front Benchers are present. The previous debate, which was about gambling, attracted at least 20 times as many Back Benchers, which illustrates the point of raising this issue. The ninth commandment of the Back Bencher's 10 commandments says, "Neglect the rich, the obsessed and the articulate, and seek out the silent voices." There are no voices quieter than those of people who are in residential homes for the elderly. Many of them have no relatives, or only relatives who are indifferent to their welfare. They are often broken and defensive and feel themselves to be weak, and their voices are rarely heard. The empty green leather Benches that surround us this morning are eloquent testimony to that.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this campaign is enormously important. Sadly, it is not a new campaign, and although I wish him well in his plea, we have to look at the failures of the past decade. A number of early-day motions have been tabled in this Session of Parliament, the first of which was early-day motion 66, headed "Elder Abuse". There was also an early-day motion in 2000, and others in 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995 and 1994. I shall read out one of them to illustrate the fact that the position has hardly changed.
Early-day motion 1565, dated 1998, said:
"That this House is shocked by the evidence from the Alzheimers Disease Society and Age Concern on the dangers of the over-medication of the elderly; is alarmed by reports that up to one in five admissions to hospital of the elderly are caused by the misuse of medicines and by investigations in England and Scotland that found 54 per cent. and 88 per cent."—
the 54 per cent. was in Manchester and the 88 per cent. was in Glasgow—
"of prescriptions of powerful neuroleptic drugs"
to elderly residents in homes were not needed, so were "wrongly prescribed". The early-day motion calls for an improvement in care services, and
"calls on the Government to replicate the reviews nationally"—
that is, the reviews in Manchester.
There have been other parliamentary efforts, too. The Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes (Medical Records) Bill 2000 sought to change the situation, and
98WH
Adjournment debates in 1996, 1998 and 2000 made the same points—and those are not the whole story, but all the results of the activity of one MP. Others, too, have been pursuing the matter.
Whenever the issue is raised in Parliament, whenever I mention it in a question or in debate, hon. Members from both sides come up to me and say that what I have described also happened to their elderly mother-in-law, or to their father, or someone else in their family. The stories are very similar. The old people concerned went into homes, reluctantly, because they were physically frail but very alive and sharp mentally, but within a short time, they were turned into zombies. People in that condition are easy to manage. Many of us conclude that prescriptions of neuroleptic drugs are given not because of medical conditions but because it is much easier to run a home full of passive supine people who will take orders easily, than a home full of argumentative elderly people. The results for the elderly people are catastrophic.
Several studies have been carried out. One in Glasgow, which I have already mentioned, said that 88 per cent. of drugs were wrongly prescribed. As has been pointed out, that largely involves antipsychotic drugs, which are meant for people who are deeply psychotic. They are being used for an entirely different purpose—as a chemical cosh to induce lethargy in elderly people. Every study carried out by any independent body here, elsewhere in Europe or in the United States has found evidence of vast overuse of such drugs. Reactions from Governments of all colours have been discouraging and inappropriate.
The study carried out by Professor Alistair Burns, Sarah Kathryn Lloyd Craig and Lee Furniss in Manchester is probably the most celebrated. On my way to the debate this morning, I passed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who gave Professor Burns an award for that study when he was a Health Minister. It was a greatly encouraging study, and one assumed that the world would change after it. Professor Burns took into homes an independent group of doctors and pharmacists, who were not attached to the homes in any way, but, coming from outside, looked critically at the prescriptions being given out. Many of them were historic—people were getting prescriptions for illnesses that they had had 40 years earlier. Some of those were wholly inappropriate and clashed with other prescriptions.
The result of the study was to alter prescriptions, and greatly to reduce the number of prescriptions issued and medicines taken. The elderly people started to take milder medicines, often in lower doses. As a result, not only were their lives improved, but they made connections with members of staff and other residents. They were healthier and lived longer. Perhaps best of all—in the view of some people—there was a financial saving as well. That would have been irrelevant, because the aim was not to make financial savings, but every investigation has shown that savings result.
A similar exercise was carried out on a smaller scale in Ceredigion. The investigators did not find a significant amount of over-prescription, but they found that repeating prescriptions of appropriate medicines reduced the total amount of medication and resulted in a financial saving. Professor Alistair Burns and the others who took part demonstrated that large numbers

99WH
of elderly people do not have to suffer from misery and confusion at the end of their days. We all applaud that priceless achievement.
Sadly, as suggested by the report referred to by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, little progress has been made. The reasons are Government timidity and a reluctance to take on the medical establishment and challenge the opinions of doctors. A simple way to find out whether there is abuse would be to publish the percentages of residents in homes who are on dangerous drugs such as Largactil and the other neuroleptics. It would come out clearly that in some homes 100 per cent. of the residents are on neuroleptic drugs and in other homes none are. A health worker who was horrified by the drugs' effects set up his own home and decided not to allow them in. As a result, his home is successful, happy and profitable. Even that simple exercise, which would tell us where abuses are taking place, has not been undertaken.
Age Concern, Action on Elder Abuse and the Alzheimer's Disease Society have published details of heartbreaking cases. In some homes, all the residents are routinely given a pill at 6 o'clock at night. They are then put to bed and miss life, television and everything else that happens. When they wake up and wander around at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, they are given another pill. That is elder abuse on a large scale. There is a report in the papers this morning about the abuse of illegal drugs, but the greatest abuse of drugs takes place in this age group. We do not measure the numbers who have suffered from over-prescribing since 1993 to 1994, when the issue arose in this country, but they would be not in the hundreds or in the thousands but in the hundreds of thousands.
Is there a way out? There is in America, which, to its credit, went through this process a long time ago. Similar debates took place in the parliaments of countries such as Canada and America in previous decades. They concluded that it was necessary to institute a truly independent system of inspections, with powers attached.
The owners of care homes tell us that it is not they but the doctors who issue prescriptions, make decisions and have the power; one is quoted in the report referred to by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. Of course that is right. However, there is often strong evidence of collusion; the two work together. The situation is similar to that of doctors in hospitals and prisons. There is a community of interest, and the parties close ranks.
A parallel situation exists in prisons, in which there is a routine knee-jerk reaction to women prisoners who mutilate themselves—a common action by young women who have been abused, perhaps by the care system, their family or their partner. In her book "Invisible Women", Angela Devlin described the almost universal reaction of prison officials. The doctors prescribe antipsychotic drugs, which turn the young women into what are called, in the cruel language of the prison, "muppets". Young women are given drugs that were meant for the deeply psychotic.
100WH
I am afraid that the cosy relationship between the doctors and the nursing homes is allowing the problem to continue. Often in such cases, those who are prescribed the drugs do not have an examination, or reexamination, by doctors; they are given them on the say-so of staff in homes. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that many homes are run in an exemplary manner; the staff are dedicated, and they do jobs that most of us would be reluctant to do, and would, I suspect, be bad at doing. The tasks that they must perform are often heartbreaking, and the financial rewards are very small. They are an army of dedicated people, and I would not criticise such workers in homes for the elderly.
We look to the Government to react strongly. I have a copy of a letter that I sent to Ministers in the past, which contains terms similar to those used by the hon. Gentleman. Pleas have been made again and again, but progress is small, if there is any at all. We want to ensure that all homes are inspected. In America, prescriptions are checked monthly, then rechecked and improvements are made. If that does not happen here, the misery of a large number of unprotected and defenceless people will continue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Frank Cook): I seek to help hon. Members. In these 90-minute debates it is the common convention to start the winding-up speeches of the two Opposition spokespeople and the Minister 30 minutes before the end, but we are well ahead of that stage at present. In similar situations in the past—on two occasions, in my experience—a Member who spoke early has taken an inordinate length of time, which is not fair on other Members, nor on the replying Minister. I therefore earnestly appeal to hon. Members not to extend their contributions unduly, so that the time available is equitably shared.
11.32 am
Sandra Gidley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but you have obviously never heard me speak before, because I do not tend to speak at length.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for securing the debate. This is an important subject, and I echo the thoughts of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) that it is disappointing that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber. It has been a big disappointment for me on coming to Westminster to find that debates on health topics are frequently among the less well attended, and combining the subjects of health and the elderly seems to create a double problem.
I shall begin with some anecdotal evidence. I have taken a close interest in nursing homes since I was a mayor. One of the delights, or otherwise, of being a mayor is visiting all the nursing homes and care homes at Christmas, and it struck me powerfully that one could judge a home as one walked in. In some, residents are happy and lively and chat to each other—one can have an enjoyable visit, perhaps meeting old suffragettes, and all sorts. In others, residents sit in chairs and no effort is made to encourage people to communicate with one another. Often that is a result of the leadership of the owners. It is a subtle rather than a deliberate form of neglect. I found it upsetting to enter those homes, and I wondered who spoke to the residents all day.

101WH
The chemical cosh has been a problem for some years. Nearly 20 years ago—I was a pharmacist at the time—doctors were bulk prescribing for nursing homes. Prescriptions for packets of 500 tranquillisers at a time were common. Thankfully, that has changed and things have got a bit better over the years. GPs now have to take more care and pay more attention to their prescribing. They often officially endorsed whatever was going on in the nursing home—that has been hinted at already. They took the word of the nursing home owner at face value. Questions arose in my mind about that when one home that I regularly dispensed medication for changed hands. The prescriptions for antipsychotics dropped dramatically. As a pharmacy manager, I had a problem because they were left on my shelf, so I quizzed the new owners, who said that the drugs were not necessary. Since they had got over the hurdle of withdrawing them, they felt that the residents were healthier, happier and livelier—and they did not have a problem with that, because they thought that older people should be lively. Their view was certainly not that of the majority.
The research by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has highlighted a 70 per cent. increase in the use of atypical antipsychotics among the over-60s in 1999–2000. We must be careful when we refer to percentages; it might be easier to use numbers, so I shall say that that means about 150,000 prescription items. There was a corresponding drop in prescribing traditional antipsychotics with more side effects, but only a drop of 2.9 per cent. There has been a big increase in the prescribing of chemical coshes.
Part of the problem—here it would be useful if the Minister could tell us what information has been given to GPs—is that when introducing such drugs one cannot treat older people in the same way as the rest of the population. Many older people are already taking various types of medication that may interact with each other, which is called polypharmacy. Because of failing kidneys or liver, they are less able to get rid of drugs when they are administered, so it is important that they begin with a low dose. If such good practice is not followed, the risk of side effects is considerable, including mental impairment, uncontrolled and involuntary movements, tremor, problems with blood pressure, sweating, incontinence, and dizziness. Those are all normal side effects of the drugs, but older people are less likely to be able to cope with them.
The side effects are very unpleasant, and could also exacerbate existing problems to a small degree. It is vital that we train staff, and GPs, in understanding the problems of older people, particularly dementia. Not enough work has been done to understand that problem and find ways to deal with people without resorting to chemical methods or some form of abuse. The poor wages in the sector have already been highlighted. Often there may be a very willing nursing home owner, but because of frequent changes of staff—working in a home is not a popular job—it is difficult to get that message across to the staff consistently.
GPs have many demands on their time, and probably do not have the time or the money to devote to this issue. Standard 9 of the national minimum standards is designed to protect people from inappropriate medication, through clear policies and procedure for dealing with medicines. However, many concerns have
102WH
been raised about the fact that that the question of who will monitor that standard has not been adequately addressed. The Minister may respond to those concerns today.
Any form of restraint is a problem. I have highlighted the problems of incontinence and other side effects, and if people experience those, it can create a vicious circle. People simply sit there, not reacting to their surroundings, and the problem continues. Who will police the carers? I echo the concerns that have been expressed about the provision of adequate resources to protect people.
There is a case from close to home that, unfortunately, illustrates the point that I am trying to make. There is a nursing home whose owner has high standards, the home is kept very nicely and the residents are generally happy. However, the owner admits that he has problems from time to time, one being that he cannot be there every hour of the day. He arrived one morning to find a patient very distressed, which was unusual, because the lady in question was usually bubbly and happy. Something had obviously gone wrong. In talking to her and to the staff, who were keeping fairly quiet, he discovered that she had been taken to the toilet early in the night and forgotten, so she had been left there for hours getting cold, frightened and distressed.
The owners took that seriously, and promptly sacked the nurse in question. The nurse appealed and took them to an industrial tribunal, but they were on safe ground. I found it particularly appalling that the nurse was then able to enrol with an agency and earn a living filling in at nursing homes throughout the area. The story has a relatively happy ending, because the nurse eventually appeared before the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, which removed her from the register. However, for 18 months she had been able to subject other old people to neglect or abuse.
Sometimes the abuse is unthinking rather than deliberate, which is why we need to get the message across about positive ways of looking after our elderly people. A Counsel and Care publication, putting it very well, says:
"An act of omission rather than a deliberate act of tying a knot or turning a key can restrain residents, and staff may not be consciously aware that they are doing it."
The phrase "consciously aware" is the key. The problem is connected with education. The publication continues:
"Staff might think that, "He has had a good day today, he has been sitting quietly in his room." In fact, the resident might not have been given his walking stick, or he might still have his breakfast tray fastened across his lap. He might desperately want to get up to go to the toilet, go for a walk, or simply relieve the pressure on his lower back, but he can't. So he sits, having a quiet day."
There is a cultural perception with older people, as there is with children, that if they are quiet it must be good. That is not necessarily the case.
I would also like to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Newport, West about how residents feel that they cannot stand up for themselves, while their

103WH
relatives, who perhaps do not visit as often as they should, do not want to make a fuss either. There is often an advocacy problem. Has that ever been considered or dealt with?
To sum up, I will list certain ideas or suggestions. First, does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to have an annual review of prescribing for elderly people? If that could not be done for all elderly people, perhaps a way of monitoring prescribing in care homes could be devised. If over-prescribing is a growing trend, that is a problem, particularly with an increasingly elderly population.
Mr. Burstow: A comprehensive annual review would undoubtedly be a useful tool. As the hon. Member for Newport, West and I have said, medication reviews need to be much more frequent to prevent the damage and harm that can be done in a very short time. If the concentrations are wrong, the effects can quickly become devastating.
Sandra Gidley: I agree with my hon. Friend, but much of that comes back to the fact that GPs do not necessarily have the time or the inclination to deal with what may seem a small part of their work load. We certainly have to address the problem from an educational viewpoint. Here I should put in a plug for my fellow professionals, the pharmacists, who are in an ideal position to monitor medication. Some already do so, and are paid for visiting homes, but not all homes are keen to take up that offer. Perhaps we should move in that direction.
Who can give real advice about antipsychotic drugs? One could accept guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence if nothing else was available, but the trouble is that NICE considers only one drug at a time. It does not consider other drugs that could be prescribed for the same symptoms, and its prescribing recommendations can mean that other medications suffer. We need some helpful guidelines on when it is appropriate to prescribe particular types of antipsychotic.
The problem has been highlighted for a number of years, but the impression that I gained from listening to the hon. Member for Newport, West was that little has been done and that the problem is ignored—probably for the same reasons as there are so few of us here today. Have the Government any plans to study the abuse of the elderly, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam? Will increased resources be made available to the National Care Standards Commission?
The other problem, at least in my locality, is that the local authority rate paid to nursing homes is low, and most relatives are forced to top up the nursing home fees. The problem about a low rate being paid is that inadequate attention is sometimes paid to providing the best possible service. However, some homes manage it, and we need to find a way of spreading that best practice. Increasing the grant from local authorities might help. We would then be assured that nursing homes would not have to resort to the measures that have been highlighted so eloquently today.
11.46 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. As he said, it is a taboo subject to many people.
All too often, when considering abuse one thinks of child abuse. That emphasis can be seen in many social services budgets, because a significant proportion of their money each year is spent on the protection of children and their interests. I do not criticise that, but society concentrates on the problems of children and the horrendous problems of child abuse, with which we are far too familiar, to the exclusion of elder abuse. That is partly because many people do not realise that such a problem exists. It is either swept under the carpet or, because we are dealing with adults, people are unable to reconcile themselves to the fact that it occurs. As previous speakers have made clear, that fallacy needs to be addressed.
Sadly, far more elder abuse takes place than one realises, although as hon. Members have said, part of the problem is a general lack of understanding. There is also a lack of information, which, together with the fact that people do not understand the problem, means that one cannot realistically quantify the level of abuse that exists. There are various types of abuse. The obvious forms of abuse are physical, but far more insidious is psychological abuse. The latter is particularly cruel to the vulnerable and the weak, but it is also particularly difficult to prove and to combat.
There are also financial abuses. The Court of Protection can of course help, but all too often it does not play as sound and vigorous a role as one would hope in protecting the interests of those who can no longer look after their own financial and other affairs. Finally, there are the issues of sexual abuse—however distasteful that may be—and neglect, which, like psychological abuse, can be difficult to pinpoint and combat.
One difficultly is that abuse can happen anywhere—in the homes of the individual or of a carer, in residential or nursing homes, and even in hospitals. None of us should make the mistake of grossly generalising and tarring everyone with the same brush. The vast majority of privately owned and local authority owned residential and nursing homes, and the vast majority of medical staff in national health service and private hospitals, do a first-class job of looking after the elderly and other members of society. It would be unfortunate if carers and professionals in nursing were tarred with the same brush as the few who cause the elderly so much misery and suffering.
The scant evidence available suggests that, ironically, most abuse is carried out by individuals who are well known to the person who is being abused. We have a duty to ensure that elderly members of society have the right to a standard of living that is as high as possible—the standard that we would seek for ourselves. We also have a duty to ensure that they enjoy the dignity to which they are entitled.
The sad fact of life is, however, that changes that have occurred in society over the past 20 to 40 years are placing, a strain on the elderly. I have in mind greater mobility—younger family members sometimes need to leave the traditional home to search for work in other

105WH
parts of the country—and the breakdown of the concept of family that existed 40 years ago. Family members often do not live close to each other, as they would have done 40 years ago. There is, therefore, no family support system, although the problem does not affect the elderly alone. Young families with children often do not have the stabilising influence of grandparents who can provide support. All too often, family members move away from the area in which they were born and brought up, and grandparents and elderly parents become isolated because there is no family support system. There is, therefore, an increasing reliance on agencies and on other forms of accommodation for the elderly, which can give rise to a greater propensity for abuse.
One comes to realise, from acquaintance with organisations such as Action on Elder Abuse, that there is great ignorance on this subject, and that abuse is carried out for a variety of reasons.
There are elderly people who are fortunate enough to be still living in their own homes, possibly with a carer or a domiciliary care package to help them to remain in those familiar surroundings, but abuse can arise from poor long-term relationships in the home, or a carer's inability to provide the required level of care. Sometimes the carer has mental or physical problems. There is a considerable and increasing burden on carers. The statistics, which reveal a worrying prospect for the future, show that people who care for elderly people are becoming older. Many of them are pensioners themselves. That causes a problem, not just because of the strains, frustrations and difficulties of caring for someone, but because the carers will have their own problems and hardships.
In other settings, such as residential or nursing homes, abuse is thought to be more often a symptom of staffing problems. Some staff may be poorly trained or supervised, or have little support from management in carrying out their duties. They may also work in isolation, which puts strains and pressures on them.
It is necessary to consider how to move forward. That does not involve the Government alone, although of course they have a role, which I am sure the Minister will fully accept. There are no differences of opinion among hon. Members about the problem, and I suspect that there will be little difference between our views about what we need to achieve. However, we should also pay tribute to the organisations that work with the elderly, providing support and back-up and playing a key role in enhancing elderly people's quality of life, as well as trying to minimise opportunities for abuse.
More needs to be done. Many hon. Members have talked about raising care standards, which is critical. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, we are not talking about the size of rooms, or whether there is a lift. We are concerned about raising standards among people who look after elderly people in residential or nursing homes and people who provide domiciliary care for those able to remain in their homes. Of course the National Care Standards Commission has an important role to play. Similarly, more care and help is needed for carers, to reduce their feelings of isolation and frustration.
Ironically, it was only this morning that I was talking to someone who told me about the frustration felt by carers when, with all the other work that they do, they
106WH
need to talk to someone from the authorities, such as a doctor or representative of the social services department. All too often they are told that the person in authority is not prepared to discuss the problem with them, but will speak only to the individual concerned. That is ludicrous in many cases, particularly if the elderly person is suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Such people cannot rationalise the problem that must be discussed with the agency, and there should be a more sympathetic and realistic approach.
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Many have experienced the practical difficulty that the system does not allow for another person to take decisions on health and welfare matters when someone has lost the mental capacity to make decisions on their own behalf. Would he agree that there is a need to examine and change the law in that regard?
Mr. Burns: I would agree that the matter must be reconsidered carefully, because the situation is unsatisfactory, but I hesitate to give a knee-jerk reaction in favour of new legislation, even after the hon. Gentleman's valid intervention, without seeing more evidence about the extent of the problem and hearing further suggestions about sensible improvements. It is dangerous to call automatically for legislation as a solution. If one has enough evidence to justify changes in the law, they should be considered, but I would not want to give a blanket call for a change in the law at this stage. I agree that something must be done to provide more co-operation and assistance for carers in that respect, as it is deeply frustrating for them to have to cope with the bureaucracy on top of everything else.
All the hon. Members who have spoken have talked about the use of medication. I do not think anyone would disagree that it is deeply distasteful and morally wrong to fill elderly people up with pills and keep them sedated and quiet simply to give those who look after them an easy life. It is not right to take the easy option of pill-popping for a quiet life. More must be done to solve that problem, and we must discover sensible ways of stopping that from happening.
More protection must be given to those vulnerable people, especially those who are senile or approaching senility and who do not have complete control over their lives. One hears stories of unscrupulous staff who, while in a position of responsibility looking after those people, plunder their assets.
I know of a case of an elderly lady, living in a residential home, who owned an original Lowry and kept it in her room. When she died, the picture had disappeared by the time her stepdaughter arrived at the home a few hours later. The nurse who had been looking after the lady was a locum who, as was established after a complaint to the police, had taken the picture upon her death. When the police tracked the nurse down, she said, "The picture is mine. The old lady said I could have it when she died." When the old lady had entered the nursing home, however, she was in no fit mental state to give anything to anyone. I have serious doubts that the picture was ever promised to the nurse—indeed, it could not have been, because the lady was not of sound mind. Yet in the light of that interview the police decided not to pursue the matter any further. Only when the stepdaughter decided to take out a private prosecution,

107WH
because the picture had turned up for sale at an auction house in Sussex, did the nurse back off and return the picture. However, there was no prosecution and the family involved in the situation—which dragged on for about 18 months—felt let down by the police because it seemed clear that the lady concerned was in no fit mental state at any stage, from the moment she entered the residential home, to make a rational decision about giving her possessions to anyone.
I wonder how frequently elderly people are abused in that way by a small minority of unscrupulous people who prey on them in the hope that they will never be prosecuted, or even found out, because of the state of their victims? More attention should be given to the matter. The picture was sold at Christie's in London about two years later and reached the record price for the sale of a Lowry. This was an object worth not a few hundred pounds, but—from memory—almost six figures.
We have been fortunate in the success of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam in securing this debate. The issue is too often swept under the carpet; people either refuse to accept that there is a problem, or, because it is in many ways such a horrendous problem, they do not want to confront it. More must be done to eradicate this obscenity from our society.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the Minister to reply, may I indicate that as this is a critical debate—indeed, I am sorry that I was not in the Chair for the beginning of it—I hope that she will use the maximum time permitted for her reply if she needs it.
12.7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I begin by concurring with your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an extremely important debate. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has secured it and given us an opportunity to hear from other hon. Members. I am sorry that there are not more of our Back-Bench colleagues present, although the quality of the contributions has not been any the lower for that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) has a long and proud record of having raised such issues, particularly in relation to medication, on which he is probably far more of an expert than I shall ever be. He has made a great contribution to the on-going debate and it is important for us to pursue it.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for having given me notice of the areas of concern that he wanted to highlight. I hope to cover them in some detail, and, perhaps, to offer him reassurance. The first is the overarching legal framework in which the issue of elder abuse can be addressed. Secondly, he mentioned training, qualifications and the standard of staff providing care for elderly people—a crucial issue. As he said, quality of care is not about the width of doorways, passenger lifts, and room dimensions—although those things are important; physical standards and the environment in which people are cared for are matters of great concern.
108WH
The time taken to talk, to listen and to interact with elderly people is key to their sense of well-being, so I particularly want to talk about training.
The third issue is resources. We must look at the adequacy of the National Care Standards Commission, what its budget will be, whether it will be able to monitor not just physical standards but the quality of care given in residential settings, what the numbers of employees will be and how they will draw on the work of other professionals, not simply the commission, to ensure that the picture is fully rounded.
The final subject raised was the important issue of medication, which prompts several questions, such as how often medication should be reviewed, and what systems are being put in place to prevent inappropriate prescribing and over-prescribing of medication for elderly people, particularly, but not exclusively, in residential care settings. Many elderly people are now supported to live in their own homes by intensive domiciliary care packages, which will be regulated for the first time. We should not think that the care of elderly people is only about residential care. I hope that in the future, it will increasingly be about maintaining people's independence in their own homes, which is how most elderly people want to be cared for.
I hope to cover a great deal of ground in my response. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said that on her visits to care homes, she had seen dramatic variations in standards of care. I am sure that all hon. Members will have visited care homes, either to see family or friends or to see constituents, and many of us would echo the hon. Lady's comment that to lay people, standards of care seem to vary dramatically from one care setting to another. This is an issue involving leadership, and the ethos set for their staff by people who run care homes. That brings me back not only to training, but to the stability of the care home sector. Stability is important so that people can plan for the future and provide not just a business but a residential care establishment of high quality. Therefore, some issues go beyond care standards and relate to the stability of the whole sector. If we want a substantial well founded residential care sector that can meet the necessary standards, we must think ahead to where we will be in five or 10 years' time and consider the sort of care that can be provided.
The Government share hon. Members' concern about elder abuse. We are trying to ensure that there is a comprehensive framework to minimise the prospect of such incidents occurring. However, I want to put it on record at the outset that cases of deliberate elder abuse are very few, and I am thankful for that. Our real concern should be directed towards abuse that results from poor quality and inadequate care. Cases of deliberate neglect and abuse are in a tiny minority.
Sandra Gidley: Would the Minister not describe the over-prescribing of neuroleptics as deliberate?
Ms Blears: If a deliberate decision were taken that was not in the best interests of a patient who was receiving medication from their GP, that would be a matter of concern not only to the Government but to the authorities who regulate health care professionals. We are talking about the extent of prescribing and the

109WH
effects of over-prescribing. A deliberate clinical decision to harm a patient would be abuse, but we are not talking about that. There are issues surrounding the over-prescribing of antipsychotic drugs, but I am certainly unaware of any widespread, deliberate clinical decisions to harm patients, so it would be wrong to consider the issue in those narrow and restricted terms.
I want to put on record my appreciation of the immense dedication of thousands of members of staff who work in sometimes intense, pressured situations, caring for elderly people in residential care settings. Many of them do a first-class job caring for people, so we should ensure that our debate remains in that context. One of the worst things that we can do is to drive down the morale of people who are working extremely hard, often on very low pay, at the sharp end of care in our communities.
I also want to thank the charities and other organisations that advocate for older people and try to push relevant issues up the agenda. Action on Elder Abuse has campaigned tirelessly to ensure that the issues are in the public domain. Local authorities such as Lewisham, Cornwall, Sheffield and Surrey have developed adult protection procedures through their social services departments to co-ordinate the response of relevant agencies to abuse. That mirrors the child protection multi-agency machinery that we are developing.
Such matters are not the responsibility of one agency. There are several statutory and voluntary organisations that must work together to ensure that incidents are minimised and that when they do occur, there is a proper, considered response.
Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend is rightly focusing on the positive aspects of the care of the elderly, which should be stressed. Perhaps we have neglected one area during the debate: the wonderful work done to expand the lives of elderly people through new technology. The infirm and those who are seriously handicapped can be liberated to roam across the vast prairies of the world wide web. That has greatly expanded the life experience of elderly people. We should commend organisations such as Hairnet, and the local authorities that have encouraged the development of fuller and richer lives for elderly people in residential homes and elsewhere.
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right. I read a report about that from a community organisation in my constituency, where some elderly ladies in their late 80s have obtained their first new technology qualification. They are surfing the web with real enjoyment. That means that increasingly well armed and knowledgeable constituents will raise serious issues at our surgeries. New technology can allow interaction with the outside community even for people with physical infirmities.
The Government take the regulatory framework seriously. We began with the White Paper in 1998, and subsequently passed the Care Standards Act 2000, which put the aspirations of the White Paper into law. New regulatory frameworks are being introduced for residential care and nursing homes and agencies. Moreover, for the first time we will regulate domiciliary care agencies. The framework will be overseen by the National Care Standards Commission. Those are
110WH
significant steps, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam welcomed the introduction of the commission, and the national service framework for older people. Those are recent significant steps in ensuring that we have a more coherent regulatory framework for the care of the elderly.
I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the creation of the protection of vulnerable adults list. In health and social care for vulnerable adults, the list will introduce a ban on workers who have harmed such individuals. The list will be similar to those in other public services: if it is proven that someone has harmed a vulnerable adult, they will not be re-employed. That is a significant step in providing real protection for older people.
The gateway to the system will be through the already established Criminal Records Bureau. A person included in the list must not be offered employment in a care worker position. If an employer has a reasonable belief that a care worker has abused a vulnerable adult, that worker must be referred to the Secretary of State for provisional inclusion on the protection of vulnerable adults list, even if the person is an ex-employee or retired. If the Secretary of State decides to include the person's name provisionally, inquiries will be undertaken to decide whether that inclusion should be permanent. Individuals may appeal to the tribunal if they have been put on the list. That is a significant step to ensure that we have a proper record. As in the case raised by the hon. Member for Romsey, if someone has harmed an older person, that individual should not be re-employed in the same service and allowed to continue such behaviour.
We also have the General Social Care Council, which will regulate the work force. Qualified social workers will be the first group to be registered, but we expect residential care home managers to be in the next group. In order to be registered with the GSCC, a person will have to demonstrate that they are of good character, physically and mentally fit to carry out the work for which they seek registration, and competent to do so, having attained a proper level of training.
Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister tell us when she expects front-line care workers to be registered with the GSCC? Given that she has said that a small minority of staff go through due process and are reported for direct abuse, does she agree that although the list is a welcome addition, there is still a need for research that will give us a better picture of the entire iceberg, and not just its tip?
Ms Blears: I will come later to research—an important matter, which the hon. Gentleman has already raised. I cannot give him a specific date on which front-line workers will be registered, because the process is on-going. We are starting with social workers and moving on to residential care home managers. We want to ensure that the whole of the work force who are in contact with elderly people are properly regulated and trained. Those are new measures, which are part of the new regulatory framework. Let us see how it settles down and beds in, and how we can begin to roll out a more extensive programme.
It is easy to call for overnight action on issues that have been outstanding for decades. Action is beginning to be taken, and we have to ensure that we set

111WH
challenging targets that are also realistic. There are people out there who care for many elderly people. If our targets are not realistic and do not inspire confidence that they can be achieved, we will be in danger of setting our sights too high and setting people up to fail, which is the last thing we want. The most sensible way forward is the twin-track approach of setting new challenging targets and seeing how we can meet them.
In terms of training, we have set up a new fund specifically to ensure that we train people on induction standards when they first come into the sector. We should try to have a properly qualified social care work force, wherever people are working. Again, the record on that issue is poor. The National Training Organisation for Social Care published its training strategy—the first national strategy—in July 2000. That strategy includes details of the training and qualifications that care staff should have, starting with induction training for new staff.
In 2001–02, £2 million was set aside for induction training. Those standards cover essential elements such as understanding the principles of care and understanding the experiences and the particular needs of the service user group. The standards look at training from the point of view of the people who are being cared for, rather than from the point of view of the profession. That is a significant change that places patients and service users at the centre of the services that we are trying to set up. It will ensure that training is relevant to the needs of the people who are being cared for.
The National Care Standards Commission's national minimum standards include standards for training and qualifications for both care staff and managers. Those standards start with the induction training that new staff should undertake within six weeks of commencing their employment. They will move through foundation training to a competence-based qualification. In that way care staff will be more confident about their work, and I hope that they will take a more mature attitude to it.
There are about 1 million people in the social care work force, but only 20 per cent. of them have a relevant qualification. As I have said, we have to be realistic because we cannot expect to get everybody qualified overnight. We must ensure that services are still provided while staff are undertaking qualifications. We also have to know that there is sufficient capacity on the supply side with staff coming through. We must address the relatively low pay, and the fact that that kind of work has been undervalued.
Mr. Burstow: The Minister is right that there is a question about capacity. Can she assure us that when we get to 2005 and half of all care staff have to be trained to NVQ2 level, capacity will not become a reason for allowing the standard not to be applied in full from that date?
Ms Blears: We have set a target for 50 per cent. of care staff in residential care homes for older people to hold an NVQ2, and we aim to meet that target. There should be no excuses for having unqualified staff in a very
112WH
important service. One way of raising the value of work in the sector, and thereby attracting more people to work in it, is to ensure that there is access to proper qualifications. We want to make faster progress if we can; that is why we have set that target.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned staff struggling with numeracy and literacy. There are some 10,000 people in the national health service as a whole who have such problems. We have a huge problem with access to basic skills in this country, so training in that area must also be considered.
We have care standards, the protection of vulnerable adults list, the qualifications required by the GSCC, the No Secrets guidance and the National Care Standards Commission. Let us see how that regulatory framework beds in and works. The overarching criminal law also provides for action to be taken when there are unfortunate incidents. We believe that that regulatory framework is an appropriate way forward.
Several hon. Members have mentioned overmedication and the over-prescription and inappropriate use of antipsychotic drugs for older people. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has set out some of the research on that in his report, and I understand that he is awaiting a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), which I am sure he will receive shortly.
We agree that excessive and inappropriate use of antipsychotics is a form of abuse. Because of our concern, we have tried to examine the available data on the change in prescribing rates of typical and atypical antipsychotics. The picture is complex and there is not one single explanation for the changes. The data that we have are captured from the Prescription Pricing Authority are about changes during the past year. The hon. Member for Romsey quoted the figures that show that prescribing of atypical antipsychotic drugs has increased. There is a reduction in the prescription of typical antipsychotic drugs, but that does not account for the whole difference in prescribing.
We are currently considering research on antipsychotic drugs in different care settings and the recommendation to ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce guidance on the use of such drugs for older people. That is an important field of research. It is difficult to drill down into what the data from the Prescription Pricing Authority really mean in residential care settings and in the community for older and younger people.
It is possible that the prescription of atypical antipsychotic drugs has increased because care for older people is catching up with trends in care for younger people, where there is an increasing use of modern drugs that have fewer side effects and are more beneficial. However, I do not think that that is the full explanation. The request for research is important.
On restraint, and the report from Counsel and Care, I reassure hon. Members that the care standards require that
"service users are safeguarded from physical, financial or material, psychological or sexual abuse, neglect, discriminatory abuse or self-harm, inhumane or degrading treatment, through deliberate intent, negligence or ignorance, in accordance with written policies."

113WH
I believe that that standard is sufficiently wide to cover inappropriate restraint. That is important, and enforcing the standard will therefore be the key.
We have been asked how many inspectors the commission will have. I understand that the ratio of inspectors to homes will be approximately the same as at present—one inspector to 27 establishments—but because there will be a single and consistent regulatory regime, the arrangement is likely to be more efficient. At present, there are several different regimes, and people operate to different standards, which means that we do not make the best use of available resources. Increasingly, new technology will be used, which will give us an opportunity to do that.
I understand that inspectors will have access to 66 full-time equivalent pharmacist inspectors, who will help with the whole medicines management programme. Pharmacists play a key role in ensuring that medicines are managed properly and that there is regular review. We are beginning annual reviews for people over 75, and the prescriptions of people taking four or more medicines will be reviewed every six months. Let us see how the reviews work, because they represent significant steps forward in ensuring that medicines are managed properly.

Planning (Community Involvement)
12.30 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell: In my 15 years' experience as a councillor and almost five years as an MP, it has become clear that planning issues are one of the most prominent vehicles for promoting interest and involvement in local democratic processes. Popular involvement is not just a product of NIMBYism or of a knee-jerk reaction against change, but of people's genuine concern for their community, their environment and future generations. Members of Parliament talk a great deal about the decline in democracy. We want to overcome apathy and answer the charge that we do not listen. If we are to rebuild our democracy from the ground up, what better place to start than with a review of planning?
There are some positive aspects to the planning Green Paper. For example, all councils will have to open up planning committee meetings to public participation. The Government are to expand the planning advice service. I stress that the details must be worked out soon and the resource commitments made, so that the Government can ensure that communities genuinely believe that their role is being enhanced and supported. Councils will be required to give reasons for decisions to approve planning applications, with reference to planning policies; that is already good practice among many local authorities, including Leeds city council. I understand that the Government are reviewing current enforcement arrangements and whether a deliberate breach of planning regulations should constitute an offence immediately pursuable through the courts; that would be welcome. I am also attracted by the idea floated in the Green Paper regarding mediation, which might help deal with some of the cases that come to Members' attention.
The accent on community involvement in local development frameworks and action plans is a welcome principle. However, the plans must be relevant to people, communities and their perceptions of problems and challenges; otherwise, they will appear to be abstract and bureaucratic exercises, and will attract little participation. The deficiencies of plans will come to the fore when they are tested and found wanting against specific planning applications that excite real community attention, anxiety and opposition.
The development frameworks and action plans must clearly and specifically address the concerns of our constituents on issues such as housing and other developments that place extra pressure on the local infrastructure of roads, public transport, school places and health care provision, such as GPs. They must also place mobile phone mast applications in a clear structure and move away from the current ad hoc approach.
Contrary to the Green Paper's assertion, compiling and keeping local development frameworks and action plans up to date will be labour-intensive, especially for large local authorities such as Leeds city council. Drawing up action plans in an area such as Leeds will be very time-consuming, and I cannot think of many communities in my constituency, or across the whole of the city, that will not want their own action plan in addition to the local development framework. Will the Minister explain who will decide where action plans are desirable or required?

115WH
The idea of developers engaging the community as a material consideration in the planning process is also a worthy principle. In practice, it is unfortunately more of a selling job than an attempt to find common ground. On two recent occasions, I have heard developers quote planning policy guidance 3—PPG3—to justify inappropriate and over-intensive proposals, and portray that as a simple wish to carry out the Government's will. Surely it is not the Government's intention that such cynical engagement with the community should count in developers' favour.
I am worried about what is contained in paragraph 4.26 of the Green Paper. It refers to representation at inquiries into local development frameworks and action plans. It implies that the Government are thinking about withdrawing the right to have objections to a local plan heard in front of an inspector at a public inquiry. The Green Paper states that such a system has proved to be "time consuming and adversarial".
I hate to be a cynical old student of humanity and human psychology, but relationships between communities and developers are often hostile and adversarial—that is inescapable. Communities regard the situation as a David and Goliath battle, and we have often seen headlines couched in such terms. However, as I read the Green Paper, it seems that the Government have taken pity on poor old Goliath against the upstart David. The Green Paper also suggests that the future system might be based on informal hearings or examinations in public. The Government seem to be proposing the removal of a tangible and defined statutory right of participation and replacing it with something vaguer that relates to public involvement.
To be effective, public participation must be founded on real, legally enforceable rights, not on a set of voluntary or discretionary opportunities. The system must cater for conflict and aggrieved parties, as well as promote consensus.
In paragraph 5.2, the Green Paper states that the present system of development control is not customer friendly. Who do we mean by customers in that context—the applicants? Are not individuals, neighbours, council tax payers and communities customers too? They certainly pay for the services and expect to have their interests protected. The paper provokes other fears that local community interests may not be adequately protected. For example, new business zones will be introduced in which developers will not have to apply for planning consent.
Under the previous, Conservative Government, we witnessed what can happen when areas are excluded from the normal democratic and accountable planning processes. We have some good examples in Leeds. The Green Paper tells us that important national policy, such as planning policy guidance notes on nature conservation, will be slimmed down. Can the Minister confirm that that is not a euphemism for diluted? It states that Parliament will be able to grant permission for a wide range of projects, including large-scale quarrying and opencast mining, chemical plants and roads over 30 km. However, Parliament is not best placed for dealing with major site-specific proposals.
116WH
Lobbying an MP—no matter how brilliant we are—especially on whipped business, is not the same as having access to a public inquiry.
The Green Paper seeks to strip powers from directly elected county councils and unitary authorities, and to hand them to unelected regional planning bodies. The membership of those bodies is not made clear, but Lord Falconer confirmed in his evidence to the Select Committee that the Secretary of State would have the final veto on their membership. The Green Paper refers to local strategic partnerships and their importance. Those organisations may fulfil a useful economic regeneration function, but are not democratically accountable and should not be given influence in establishing the grounds for local public participation.
Finally, I turn to my hobbyhorse, on which I have tabled questions and an early-day motion: the third-party right of appeal on planning applications. In the Green Paper, the Government, quite wrongly, dismiss out of hand that right of appeal. They may have thought that dismissing the idea at the outset would make it go away; as always, the reverse it true. We have a system under which councils are held to be infallible when they grant planning applications, but fallible when they refuse them. In other words, developers can appeal if planning permission is refused, but communities cannot appeal when it is granted.
When I say that there are many reasons why we need at least a restricted right of appeal, I am talking not about Mrs. Scroggins appealing against the granting of planning permission for her next-door neighbour's conservatory, but about important major applications. I say that we need such a right, because, as a former council member, I am more than aware of the fact that councils are not perfect. Decisions can be finely balanced, and developers can be given the benefit of the doubt. Pressure from the district auditor can sometimes make councils sensitive about refusing too many applications, because those involved might appeal. Local authorities are also under pressure to meet housing quotas and—sometimes spuriously, as I shall show in a moment—to protect jobs. In some cases, they might even be the applicants. Finally, there are cases in which planning officers have recommended refusal, but local authority members have exercised their obvious prerogative to overturn that recommendation.
The case that the Government make in the Green Paper against a third-party right of appeal is intellectually and politically unsustainable. I hope that the Minister will not use her Department's intentions to improve the front-end community involvement aspects of the system as a pretext for preventing people from picking up controversial planning applications through a third-party right of appeal at the end of the process. I am sure that she will not suggest that calling in by the Secretary of State, judicial reviews or reference to the ombudsman will help to redress the balance as far as the community is concerned. Improving the pre-decision community involvement process is valuable and to be welcomed, but it is no good on its own. It is a bit like saying that someone can have the best defence lawyers that money can buy but that he will have no right of appeal if the jury convicts him, no matter how perversely.

117WH
Lord Falconer has impressed many people—including myself, I must say—with his grasp of the planning brief, his advocacy of the Green Paper, his willingness to debate and his huge charm. I should, however, tell him that one can be a friend of businesses without being its fall guy.
There are numerous examples in my constituency of sites that have been redesignated from employment to housing use. If the local development framework or the action plan can be ignored as easily as the unitary development plan is, we shall be back at square one. Again, that reinforces the need for a third-party right of appeal over major applications. What use is a unitary development plan, a local development framework or an action plan to the community—even where the community has been involved in drawing it up—if departures from it cannot be challenged on appeal? If there is a third-party right of appeal against such departures, the onus will surely be on the council to ensure that it gets its plans right in the first place.
Let me conclude with an example that best demonstrates why we need a third-party right of appeal. Silver Cross, the renowned pram maker, is based in Guiseley, in my constituency. Several years ago, the old family-owned company was in trouble. Consultants arrived on the scene, immediately cut the work force to 30 and came up with a recovery package that required the sale of half the site for housing. If that was not done, they threatened, the company and the remaining jobs would disappear.
The community was rightly up in arms, given the congestion that already existed on the A65 and the pressure on school places and facilities such as GP practices. The council, however, being only human, reluctantly succumbed to the threat contained in the planning application. Half the site was redesignated for housing, and planning permission was subsequently granted. The consultants then pocketed the £2 million proceeds from the sale of the site and sold the company on. The current owners, who are making a real go of the business and taking on 50 workers, are left bemoaning the loss of the rest of the site and the valuable warehousing that it contained. We are looking at massive community opposition, a reluctant council with a gun held to its head, a change in the designation of the site from employment to housing and the serious undermining of the viability of the remaining employment site. If ever a case called for a third-party right of appeal, this one does.
The Green Paper and the planning review teeter on the brink of enhancing community involvement and protecting the planning process. On behalf of the communities in my constituency, which are probably no different from those throughout the country, I do not ask for the earth; I ask only for some level ground.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) for raising this important matter. Issues relating to planning and development often generate intense community interest and scrutiny. It is often thought that planning is a dry subject, but his experience and mine do not support that view. People can be
118WH
dramatically affected by the quality of their environment; they care deeply about what happens to it and about changes that take place around the areas in which they live and work.
The Government recognise the need for a planning system that engages people in shaping the future of their communities and gives them the chance to have a say. To be successful, the planning system must have the confidence of all parties. My hon. Friend asked who the consumers are. Anyone who is affected by plans and planning applications is a consumer—the term embraces the public, the business community, who have an interest in seeing successful results, and all who care about proposals for the development of their areas.
I shall deal partly with the existing system and partly with the Green Paper, on which we are still consulting. I assume that part of the point of today's debate is to ensure that the views of my hon. Friend are fed into that consultation.
It is right that people who are affected by a plan or who have an interest in the development of an area should have the opportunity to make their views known and to have them taken into account. The system already provides such opportunities. However, in the past, people either heard about planning proposals far too late or, although they theoretically had a right to be heard, were not able to exercise that right.
The planning Green Paper, published on 12 December, puts forward robust proposals to rectify that. They are designed to strengthen the opportunities for people to comment on and influence development proposals, even before a planning application has been submitted.
I shall explain some of those changes, including the third-party right of appeal, in which my hon. Friend is particularly interested. There is an issue about the local development frameworks. In recent years, the scope for communities to participate effectively in the planning process has been enhanced by the requirement that development plan policies be adopted only after widespread consultation, and the statutory requirement for all planning applications to be publicised. However, we must do more than merely consult. We intend to deliver a planning system that better engages communities and secures their effective involvement and ownership.
We propose real community participation in the preparation of our new local development frameworks, especially in drawing up action plans—I shall deal with my hon. Friend's question on those—which bear on local areas and may result in the regeneration or conservation of particular neighbourhoods. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall development plans that ended up being 10 years out of date before they were even produced. One of the aims of the proposed changes is to ensure that we have documents that are current and relevant to a changing built and natural environment, and that are not out of date before they are completed.
The confusing complexity of the current system does little to promote public confidence or to encourage community engagement. We shall simplify the complex hierarchical system of plans and replace local plans with new local development frameworks. Those will connect with the local community strategy and help to put into practice the policies that it contains. The framework will

119WH
include a clear set of criteria by which local authorities will be able to steer development and use growth to bring about the vision for their areas. Action plans will be drawn up for town centres, neighbourhoods and villages, and those will be the focus for local participation.
My hon. Friend asked whether local communities would be able to requisition, as it were, the plans. I appreciate his point, but we do not envisage that; however, we expect close working relations between a local authority and the community, and the local authority should be sensitive and responsive to the views of the community with respect to a range of activities.
Mr. Truswell: The point that I was trying to make was that a framework that applies to a whole city will necessarily be somewhat vague and not relevant to particular communities. If those cannot, to use my hon. Friend's term, "requisition" a local action plan, I fear that the Government will fail to engage them any more than the current process does.
Ms Keeble: I take my hon. Friend's point, but we expect the local authority, through such mechanisms as a community strategy, to be alive to the concerns of communities and the areas in which action plans are needed. My hon. Friend was also concerned about local strategic partnerships and I want to go on to deal with them.
Under the present system, everyone has a right to make objections to draft local plans, and to have those heard, usually in a public inquiry. However, that approach can sometimes be time consuming and adversarial. We seek a better way to test the new local development frameworks. Under our proposal, we shall encourage all local authorities to work with local strategic partnerships to establish effective mechanisms for community involvement, building on their work preparing community strategies.
My hon. Friend questioned the democratic credentials of the local strategic partnership. They are being carefully developed around the country, but in particular in the most disadvantaged areas, with careful structuring to involve local businesses, residents, tenants and voluntary groups. We see them as extending, not replacing, the democratic credentials of the local authority and extending the effectiveness of the local authority's links with the community. The proposals on community advocacy in the Green Paper would support the ability of relevant groups to prepare and present their cases more effectively.
We propose that the local development framework should contain a statement of community involvement, setting out how the community should be involved in the continuing review of the framework and in commenting on significant planning applications. The statement will set the standard for good practice in engaging those with an interest in proposed developments. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
My hon. Friend mentioned large developments in particular. We propose that compliance with the terms of the statement, and its requirements for engaging the community, should be a "material consideration "
120WH
supporting a planning application. As my hon. Friend probably knows, that term, used by planners, would denote that the amount and quality of public consultation would be a factor that could be taken into account in determining a planning application. That is in keeping with our view that there is mutual benefit to developers and communities in working together to plan developments that are likely to have a major impact on a locality.
My hon. Friend referred to the David and Goliath relationship that is usual between community and developer, and the fact that they are seldom in agreement. That is sometimes so, but equally in some cases the developer and the community work hand in glove and the developer is careful to ensure that the community is supportive. Some might cynically say that that sometimes happens if the proposed development would conflict with a PPG, but that is not necessarily so. Best practice would avoid conflict between the developer and the community.
I shall deal with some of the issues surrounding development control, so that I can deal with some of my hon. Friend's points. Master planning of major sites will help developers plan for higher quality development in partnership with local authorities. There will be clearer information for planning applicants and new requirements for openness and accountability within the planning process.
Master planning means that an overall vision or development brief for an area is set out so that people can understand clearly what the future may look like. It enables the community to be directly engaged with big development or redevelopment proposals.
We propose that local authorities should now give reasons for approving a planning application as well as for refusing it. By listening to people's concerns up front and ensuring that people can see why a particular decision has been reached, we aim to minimise the need for action after a decision has been made, which is often the least satisfactory route of all for local communities.
We recognise that elements in the planning system are a mystery to many in the community. Therefore, we are considering whether we can provide more support to Planning Aid, a voluntary network of planners who provide professional advice to the public. In collaboration with the Royal Town Planning Institute, we are investigating how that organisation might be expanded and better funded.
Before dealing with the third-party right of appeal, I would like to touch briefly on some of my hon. Friend's other points.
Mr. Truswell: May I return to the question of Planning Aid? Does the Minister accept that it is pivotal to local communities, because structures are always regarded as bureaucratic and complicated, and the only way in which ordinary people and community groups can get round them is with the sort of advice provided by organisations such as Planning Aid? That, rather than the structure, is the key.
Ms Keeble: I certainly agree that it is essential that communities, particularly the more disadvantaged ones, be supported, so that the planning system is made to work for them.

121WH
I would like briefly to deal with three points before I go on to the third-party right of appeal. Making PPGs slimmer is designed not to weaken them but to make them more effective. Much of what is in the current PPGs consists of general statements of practice and does not represent the hard core of policy. Slimming them down is designed to make them more comprehensible, better tools in the development of planning policy. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not our intention that what he predicted should come about.
My hon. Friend also asked about debates in Parliament on general policy. It is essential that we have proper policies on major infrastructure issues, which are often among the most hotly contested in planning terms. For example, for the country not to have a proper policy on airports would be an abdication of our responsibility in that important area. It is essential that the Government propose policies on such issues and that Parliament debate them. That provides a framework for the way in which we approach the provision of that infrastructure.
We propose that counties retain their responsibility for minerals and waste. They will also retain an involvement in some other planning issues, but we envisage a slimmer planning structure. Retaining the strategic and local levels means that that tier disappears.
On the third-party right of appeal, the Government's view is that such a right would not be consistent with our democratically accountable system of planning. Elected councillors represent their communities—they must take account of the views of local people on planning matters before decisions are made and justify their decisions subsequently to their electorate.
Third parties do not have a right of appeal against planning decisions in the way that applicants do, because it is the responsibility of local planning authorities to act in the general public interest when determining planning applications. Local authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, which can include views expressed by local residents and other third parties.
The right way forward is to make the planning system more accessible and transparent and to strengthen the opportunities for community involvement, which we believe would be a major benefit of the proposals in our Green Paper.

NHS (Gloucestershire)
1 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Two hon. Members have sought my permission, and that of the proposer of the debate and the Minister, to participate in the debate very briefly, so that the Minister may reply in full.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to have secured this debate and to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in her seat. I thank her for coming to reply. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for being present. They both have an interest in the debate as they represent constituencies in Gloucestershire.
I have been applying for this debate for some time but have been unlucky in the selection procedure. My desire to have the debate began on Christmas day, when I made my usual round of hospital visits, as I am sure all hon. Members do. My visit to my local hospital was unhappy: when I arrived, I discovered that a ward was closed due to a shortage of staff. Not even agency staff could be found on that occasion. I also found a great many patients who should not have been in hospital but were waiting for nursing home places. One poor chap had been waiting for six months for a place at a specialist spinal unit.
All hon. Members receive letters telling us of problems with the health service, but when we go to hospitals and meet such people, the problems become very real. When we see the problems at first hand, they have a great effect on us. For example, I am concerned about the oncology ward in Cheltenham general hospital, at which people who are in a very sickly state sometimes arrive first thing in the morning and have to wait all day for treatment. As all hon. Members will have done, I have spoken to doctors, nurses, scientists, therapists and carers in my area, who feel not only short-staffed but extremely stretched in their work. I do not want to paint too black a picture, but I have become aware of those problems over the past year, especially in the Christmas period.
I do not blame the doctors, nurses or other staff, or the health authority in that area. The health service has national problems, to which I do not want to refer too generally, given that the debate focuses on Gloucestershire. However, there are national problems with funding, despite the Government's claims that they are increasing funding and despite the previous, Conservative Government's increased spending. Without taking into account the private sector contributions, Government spending on the health service puts this country ahead of Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy. However, we fall way behind Germany, Denmark, France, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria in that respect.
There are also problems with what is known as the postcode lottery, whereby drugs such as beta interferon, for the treatment of relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis, are prescribed in some areas and not in others. People understandably find that unacceptable, given that the NHS is supposed to be a national service.

123WH
One reason why problems have been made worse for the health service is that it has been the victim of its own success. It has kept people relatively well and allowed them to live longer. Only 50 years ago, there were 4 million pensioners in the country, whereas now there are 11 million. Although I do not want it to appear as though I am blaming pensioners for the problems, hon. Members will recognise that their greater calling on health services presents the NHS with another problem. The fact that there are also new drugs, new treatments and new operations has created greater demand. There is also a greater public awareness, and a greater expectation of public servants. All those factors add to the problems of the health service. I fully recognise that the Gloucestershire health authority and the staff there are doing the best that they can in a difficult situation.
When I visited Tewkesbury hospital on Christmas day, I found that delayed discharges, which are unkindly known as bed blocking, are a big problem. I raised the matter with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, The picture in Gloucestershire is bleak. There was a time when Gloucestershire had many nursing home places. I do not want to be party political, but in 1997 the county had 4,047 nursing home places; now it has only 3,064. Those figures were kindly provided by the Minister in a written answer, so I can only assume that the figure of 983 for the home care places that the county has lost is accurate. That is a significant fall.
What are the reasons for that fall? Again, I do not want to be party political, but people have told me that they have to work to the national standards, and say that other factors such as employment regulations and a shortage of staff have all added to the problem. We are all aware that the situation is unfair to those waiting to be discharged from hospital, their families, the hospital staff, and to those waiting for operations and for the beds that are unnecessarily occupied. It may be a bigger problem in Gloucestershire because the county has a slightly older population than some other counties. I draw that to the Minister's attention, although I am sure that she is aware of it. Unfortunately, over the past few weeks there has been another flurry of nursing home closures in the county, which will add to the problem.
As I say, I do not want to paint too bleak a picture, because many people are trying their best to make something of the situation. For instance, there is a sheltered housing scheme and a hospital home care discharge scheme, and the new trust will bid for development funds to provide further beds to be commissioned as and when they are wanted. Some initiatives are being taken, but the picture is not good.
I want to mention health service staffing in Gloucestershire. I mentioned the closed ward in Tewkesbury hospital; it was certainly needed. Staff could not be found, not even agency staff, to run the wards. When I spoke to nurses in other hospitals in Cheltenham and Gloucester, I was told how stretched the staff were and how short-staffed the service was. I was told that nurses are leaving the NHS to work for agencies, only to be employed by the NHS at a huge extra cost. No one can blame those who take advantage of that, but it benefits neither patients nor the NHS budget.
124WH
Scientific staff carry out a vital job behind the scenes. Most people never come across them, but they do important work. They, too, are stretched, as is the ambulance service. The rurality of Gloucestershire makes it difficult to provide an effective ambulance service, and it is a great tribute to those who work for it that they manage to provide such a good service. Therapists, too, are stretched, and we have far too few carers.
A great deal more is expected of public servants today, not only in the health service. However, it applies particularly to the health service, and we must consider the rewards that health service staff receive compared with what they could earn elsewhere. We must also consider their conditions of work. On a recent visit to the ambulance service in Gloucestershire, I was reminded that those who train as paramedics get very little more than those who do not. I am sure that the Minister will want to address that, as it is a big problem. If we want to provide the kind of immediate service that people want, we must ensure that we have the staff to do it.
I also want to talk about waiting times. I have been a little concerned by some letters that I have received—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and the hon. Member for Stroud share my concern—about people having to wait a long time for treatment. The national figures for people who wait 12 months or more are not impressive, and have increased during the past four years. That is reflected locally. I am worried about people who have to wait for heart bypass operations. They suffer from an extremely serious condition, and we all know of people who have waited far too long for such operations.
Several drugs have been developed to treat serious illnesses, and it is a tragedy when they are not prescribed. Gloucestershire was certainly not helped by the uncertainty created when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence seemed to point in different directions on beta interferon. To its credit, the health authority did its best to provide funding for some patients, but it was by no means enough. When a serious illness could be, but is not, treated by a drug, we have to ask what is going on and whether we have a national health service at all.
Another example that concerned me recently was brachytherapy, a treatment with which I am not familiar. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I pronounced it wrongly. It is a treatment for prostate cancer that is considered to be far less traumatic and to have fewer side effects than others. Cheltenham has a machine for it, but I am told by the Gloucestershire prostate cancer brachytherapy unit trust that it needs to raise £50,000 a year itself during the next two years to pay for the machine to run. That concerns us, given that we are supposed to have a national health service. The service seems rather patchy, and I hope that the Minister will mention that in her reply.
Some arrangements are being introduced that I hope will improve the delivery of health services. I want to draw attention to two problems. One is the joint emergency services unit, which will be effective in Gloucestershire from next year when the three

125WH
emergency teams will work together. The ambulance service has told me that it wants comparative pay levels introduced if the emergency services are to work together. The Minister might consider that with her colleagues.
New strategic health authorities and primary care trusts will also be developed. Tewkesbury and Cheltenham will form one of the smallest in the new strategic region. I am a little concerned about that and hope that the Minister will say a word or two on the subject. We are trying to be as positive as we can be about the changes, but we are concerned about the merging of hospital trusts. We hope that it will benefit patients, but we shall have to see how it works.
Gloucestershire is seen as an idyllic place to live—a wonderful place with beautiful countryside. It is a lovely place, and I am sure that all those who live there are proud to do so. However, it has pockets of deprivation and problems caused by rurality and poor health in some areas. That needs recognition. All too often, Gloucestershire is not given the funding or the treatment by Ministers that it deserves. The same may apply to other shire counties as well. I hope that, in future, simply because a county sounds beautiful to live in, it will not suffer through shortage of funding.
I thank the Minister for listening so intently, and look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say before she replies to my points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I should tell him and the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the Minister wants a full 10 minutes to reply. I hope that they will show self-discipline.
1.14 pm
Mr. David Drew: I hope that I shall take somewhat less than two minutes, and no more than my fair share.
I rise to make one point. There is a third acute hospital in the wonderful county of Gloucestershire: besides the Gloucestershire royal hospital and the Cheltenham general hospital, there is also Standish hospital. For some years, we have been waiting for the relocation of facilities to the main site at Gloucestershire royal hospital, but will the Minister reconfirm—if not today, perhaps later in writing—that before services are relocated, the medical uses of the Standish hospital site will be considered? That is only fair and reasonable, and it links up directly with what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said. That site could be used to help with the provision of facilities and to overcome the problem of delayed discharge, and we might consider to what other uses the site could be put. Will the Minister consider that and ensure that the commitment given to me by the chief executive of the health authority is fulfilled? Obviously, such matters are not so easy in these days of changing structures. On the day when we saw the launch of Care and Repair England's document, "On the mend", which considers how housing can be combined with health and social services to ensure better care for older people, it is appropriate to consider how the facilities at Standish could be used to play a part in that process.
1.16 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing this important debate. As he said, Gloucestershire is a highly rural county. I have one of the top half dozen most rural constituencies, which also contains the third highest number of over-85-year-olds of any constituency in the country. I have made those points before in this Chamber, but the capitation formula for distributing money to the various health authorities does not adequately take into account either rurality or care of the elderly. The elderly and the very young are the most expensive categories to care for, and that should be taken into account.
I want to make one narrow point. Following a debate in this Chamber before Christmas about the future of Cirencester hospital, I went to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and we discussed the need for openness from the health authority and from the new Cotswold and Vale primary care trust. Having dragged out some information from that care trust this morning, I was disturbed to discover that what I understood at that meeting would take place will not now take place. The understanding at that meeting was that on 1 February junior doctor status would be withdrawn and locums would be put in place pending Cirencester doctors being trained to house officer status.
I now discover—I was not told this as Member of Parliament for the constituency, which is disgraceful—that that was not possible and that senior house officers will have to be seconded from Cheltenham general hospital. That hospital is already overstretched. If it has surplus capacity of senior house officers, what was it doing before? That arrangement is tenuous and bodes badly for the future of Cirencester hospital, but above all, it is not in keeping with the spirit of openness that formed part of my discussion with the Minister, who was only too keen that a discussion forum should be launched, and an inaugural meeting will take place on Friday. However, for the local Member of Parliament to have to find out about proposed changes at Cirencester hospital from the local press is unacceptable, and I ask the Minister to speak to her officials in Gloucestershire to ensure that I am kept fully in the picture in future.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I welcome the decision of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to hold a debate on the national health service in Gloucestershire, and congratulate him on his success in securing the debate. Clearly, the NHS is vital to his constituents and to people throughout the country.
I shall start by briefly addressing the points made by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised the question of Standish hospital, and I shall look into his remarks on the site's future medical role.
I was not aware of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) about Cirencester hospital. I shall discuss them with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), the Under-

127WH
Secretary of State who has responsibility for the region, and we shall get back to him. We have discussed the capitation formula before, and although he pointed out the importance of considering the elderly in that context—I completely agree with him—he will be aware that other parts of the country make equally strong representations that they are penalised by a focus on the elderly. In areas where life expectancy is much lower, there is a lower elderly population, so people feel that health inequalities in their areas need to be addressed in the capitation formula. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the capitation formula is under review, and that all those points are being taken into account.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury raised a series of issues concerning the NHS in Gloucestershire, and I shall try to address some of them. Many of them were broad issues that apply both to Gloucestershire and to other areas across the country. We should be clear that there are pressures in Gloucestershire and elsewhere. Patients in many parts of the country wait too long for treatment, too many operations are cancelled at the last minute and too many patients who could be discharged are waiting in hospitals. Those problems result from years of underfunding and under-investment, which have reduced the NHS's capacity to respond. The Labour Government inherited a situation in which there were too few doctors and too few beds across the NHS.
We must also recognise the improvements that have already been made and that are being made. Such improvements are often a result of the hard work of health professionals both in Gloucestershire and across the country. The extra investment needs to be sustained into the future; we are working to provide improved care for patients in the NHS in Gloucestershire and elsewhere, but we need to go further.
Through the NHS plan, we have increased the number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals in training, we have reversed the decline in bed numbers for the first time in 30 years and we are increasing the amount of money invested in the NHS by record amounts. In Gloucestershire, as in the rest of England, that is starting to deliver changes to the services that people receive. Extra investment and extra capacity are extremely important. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury made many points concerning additional staffing, capacity and equipment, and about facilities for staff to use. I agree with him, but it is all about putting in extra investment.
The health authority has received a 5.7 per cent. real-terms increase in its budget in 2000–01 and this year. Next year, the health community's allocation will increase by 6.7 per cent. in real terms. Compared with a historical average across the country of some 3 per cent. in real terms, that is substantial additional investment in the health service. We need to look into the long-term needs of the NHS, which is what the Wanless report was about. That requires decisions about how we shall fund continued investment in the health service.
Although Westminster Hall is not a party political forum and I respect the tone in which the hon. Gentleman made his comments, he needs to debate the matter within his party, and not simply raise it with Ministers. I agree that the NHS needs greater capacity,
128WH
and that we should find additional capacity. However, he may want to raise that issue with colleagues in his party.
More than £1 million has already been allocated from the modernisation fund to improve accident and emergency services at Cheltenham general hospital, where £413,000 was used to create a new surgical admissions lounge and improve security, and at the Gloucestershire royal hospital, where the accident and emergency department was refurbished. Additional investment has enabled the number of beds in the Gloucestershire health community to increase for the first time in more than 30 years of reductions. From 1999–2000 to 2000–01, the number of beds increased by 126, or 6.6 per cent.
From 1997 to 2001, the number of doctors employed in the hospital and community health service in Gloucestershire increased by 28 per cent. Additional investment has been targeted at critical care facilities—intensive care and high-dependence beds at Gloucestershire royal and Cheltenham general hospitals. Further investment will be made during the next few years. Gloucestershire royal hospital is developing a major £32 million capital scheme under the private finance initiative.
Extra investment has enabled the health community to tackle long waits. In the two years to September 2001, the number of outpatients waiting more than 13 weeks for a first outpatient appointment fell by 31.5 per cent. and the number waiting more than 26 weeks fell by more than 46 per cent. Plans are in place to ensure that no patients wait more than 26 weeks for a first outpatient appointment after the end of March this year.
Clearly, waits must be much shorter for cancer and other urgent referrals. The target for a GP referring someone with suspected cancer to a consultant is two weeks. The Gloucestershire health community has achieved that target for all patients covered by it since last July. In the three years to last September, the number of in-patients waiting for treatment fell by 12.6 per cent.
The Gloucestershire health community is making progress and plans to deliver the targets on waiting times set out in the NHS plan, which should make a considerable difference for patients in Gloucestershire and across the country. However, we must not only put in place the extra capacity, but introduce the right reforms and ensure that money is well spent. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury mentioned the postcode lottery. I agree that we need national standards in a national health service. For the first time, in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we have an authoritative body able to produce national standards for treatment and drug use that must be followed by health authorities and primary care trusts across the country.
The national service frameworks for coronary heart disease and cancer are providing national standards. New national service frameworks, for example, for children and for long-term conditions, will also come on stream. Many modernisation projects are already under way in Gloucestershire—"action on" and "collaborative" projects are leading the way in the modernisation of services and improved care for patients. They include the booked admissions project

129WH
led by the Gloucestershire royal hospital, by which all surgical day cases, physiotherapy and routine radiography appointments are electronically booked.
"Action on" programmes are leading to shorter waiting times for patients. The ear, nose and throat programme at the Gloucestershire royal hospital is developing a GP specialist role to promote direct access for routine tonsillectomy. The action on cataracts programme at Cheltenham general hospital is improving efficiency and patient care so that patients can be treated more quickly. The orthopaedic collaboration, working across the acute hospitals, has reduced the length of hospital stays for routine hip replacements by improving pre-operative care, including physiotherapy to reduce recovery time. Discharge has now been reduced from 14 to seven to eight days.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury raised concerns about delayed discharges. He is right that there are too many, not only in Gloucestershire but across the country. Gloucestershire social services received an additional £1,463,000 last October to tackle that problem. The average number of patients waiting to be discharged has declined by more than 60 per cent., from 109 in July to 48 in January. Progress must continue, but it is already under way.
Changes to the structures of the health service in Gloucestershire are already in place. Those will allow more decisions to be made locally, provide more resources to front-line clinicians making decisions about care, and provide a better structure and better reforms with which to use the considerable, additional investment already going into the NHS.

Cattedown Sewage Treatment Works
1.30 pm
Linda Gilroy: The lives of some 4,000 Plymouth, Sutton constituents have been blighted by potent "bad egg" sewage smells for more than four years. Cattedown and Prince Rock residents are those most affected. However, when the wind blows in a certain direction, residents of Oreston in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) are also affected.
Cattedown, Prince Rock and Coxside are part of the £18 million regeneration east end renewal project area. For several years, the residents have been working hard on their plans for regenerating the area, which focus around a healthy living project. It is ironic that the blight on the area, represented by the Cattedown pong, should be something that makes people feel sick. It is absolutely essential to the success of the project that a final solution is found to the Cattedown pong.
The residents and I know that South West Water has an action plan, but I am afraid we have heard this before. Plymouth city council had powers under the Environment Protection Act 1990 to issue an abatement notice, which could insist that a time scale be attached to such action. However, that reassurance seems, like the proverbial rug, to have been pulled from under our feet.
The plant was built in 1998, and 4 km of tunnels, 25 m beneath the streets of Plymouth, were constructed to carry sewage from more then 70,000 homes to the Cattedown treatment works. The project, which brought to an end decades of raw sewage being discharged into Plymouth Sound, was a key part of South West Water's on-going £1 billion clean-sweep programme to improve water quality standards around the south-west coast.
Residents raised many questions at the time of the proposal. After all, a sewage treatment works—or waste water treatment works, as it is more properly known—is not what one would choose in the neighbourhood. Reassurances were given that it was a state-of-the-art treatment works, so there would be none of the smells that people traditionally associate with such works. Assurances were given to residents and their representatives, including Councillor Jean Nelder. I am indebted to her for her helpful recollections, based on her diligent work in representing residents' interests.
In supporting residents in their battle to end the pong, I was approached by people operating businesses and leisure pursuits from the Cattedown wharf, including Ian Sleep, who operates a boat storage and maintenance business called Shore Store. The two problems are related, because they raise issues about the original design of the treatment works. I shall deal with each issue in turn.
Apart from the unpleasant nature of the pong, people worry that the smell is contaminating washing lines, decreasing property values and may result in ill health. As one of the residents told me,
"we were assured that there would be no smell from the new works but there is, to us it is a clean sweep under the carpet by South West Water."

131WH
The bad egg odour is, of course, hydrogen sulphide gas, which is a natural product of decay. While high levels of hydrogen sulphide can be harmful, even deadly, it can be detected by the nose at an extremely low level—at concentrations of one 400th of the threshold for harmful human health effects. Apparently, the levels of H2S at Cattedown are lower, and I am advised that they do not represent a health risk per se. However, as anyone who has experienced the bad egg smell will know, the unpleasant, putrid odour can make people feel sick, to the extent, sometimes, that they become sick. It affects the quality of life in a way that could lead to or compound depression.
Plymouth city councillors and officers and I have received complaints from members of the public since 1998. They increased and became so frequent that the council officers met representatives of the water company in March 2001 and obtained commitments to a series of improvements. Following the initial meeting, complaints continued and the council officers, having experienced the odours on several occasions, concluded that a statutory nuisance existed. In July 2001, it served an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act, which required South West Water to manage the waste water treatment works to ensure that any odours emanating beyond the boundary of the area did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
The company was given three months to comply. Subsequently, South West Water confirmed that urgent action was being taken at all three sites to secure improvements. There is also a problem at Camel's Head and Ernesettle in the neighbouring constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). The company asked for six months rather than three to do the work, and the council agreed to extend the notices, but not to the full six-month period. South West Water appealed against the notices and concurrently continued with the programme of works at each site.
Early last year, I had the first in a series of meetings with representatives of residents associations and learned that complaints made directly to the water company were not handled to the high standards that we expect of a modern utility. I could see that Plymouth city council were taking appropriate enforcement action, but I felt that residents deserved better information about what was happening. A polite response to my letter to the chief executive of South West Water informed me that the matter would be attended to. However, after a bad pong episode several months later, residents told me that things had not improved, and we decided to call a public meeting and invite all the parties to come and explain what was happening.
The meeting was held on 25 September 2001 in Prince Rock primary school. More than 60 people attended, as well as officers of the council, South West Water, the Environment Agency and the secretary of the Ofwat consumer committee. The company outlined its action plan in some detail. It is fair to say that, at long last, people felt that some commitment and resources would be applied to tackle the problem.
132WH
However, South West Water continued its appeal against the time scale attached to the abatement order. At a hearing on 29 November, the solicitors acting for South West Water requested an adjournment until 20 December 2001. At that point, people were still confident that the action plan would result in an end to the problem within a reasonable time. To that end, we have monthly meetings of the relevant parties to keep the spotlight on the issue and to ensure that residents have an opportunity to contact directly the company and the people who have the power to resolve the issue.
The appeal hearing on 20 December was adjourned, it having emerged that recent case law might have a bearing on the proceedings. To our dismay, that turned out to be the case: East Riding of Yorkshire council v. Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. in 2000 made it likely that a court would not regard the treatment works as premises under part 3 of the 1990 Act. Based on legal counsel's opinion, the local authority felt that it had no option but to withdraw the notices. Officers remain convinced that the 1990 Act was intended to include sewage treatment works among the premises that come under its control and are now considering alternative action, which may include common-law litigation.
How can local residents have confidence in a provider who is prepared to exploit legal loopholes to escape regulation? The Yorkshire case seems to have involved a sewer pipe to one cottage. It is regrettable that South West Water chose to seek its application to a whole treatment works that blights 4,000-plus households—a rather different kettle of fish. Residents received a slap in the face from that legal loophole. The company used it to avoid the notice, particularly the time scale attached. My constituents feel let down, and once again unsure that a light—or, more appropriately, fresh air—is at the end of the tunnel.
Our local paper, the Evening Herald, is fully behind the residents in their campaign. I ask, as did its recent editorial, whether the situation would be different if South West Water executives lived in the pong areas. Perhaps any review of enforcement powers should stipulate that after, say, three months of the uncontrolled nuisance, company executives should have an order placed on them to reside in the area.
Any court faced with the issue is likely to hold that the waste water treatment works are not premises on which an abatement notice may be served pursuant to section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. When the Act was introduced, water authorities, which took over from local authorities in 1972, were replaced by sewerage undertakers following privatisation. However, Parliament seems to have continued to use the word "premises" without redefining it to accommodate that change. The long title of the 1990 Act refers to the intention to
"restate the law defining statutory nuisances and improve the summary procedures for dealing with them",
but there is no material redefinition of the word "premises."
Consideration can be given to the bringing of proceedings for an injunction to restrain common law public nuisance, but that is much less easy to prosecute

133WH
than an offence defined in specific legislation. Local authorities the length and breadth of the country are left in a position far less clear than that envisaged by legislators and enforcement officers.
I turn now to problems that have been encountered, over which the Environment Agency has enforcement powers. In May 2001, Ian Sleep of Shore Store wrote to me:
"We have to complain about the South West Water sewage works in Finnigan Road Cattedown. We have complained to South West Water and the Environment Agency for more than 2 years now with no improvement at all. In fact the situation is getting worse. South West Water are using the River Plym as an open sewer, and their so called storm outlet is situated under the next wharf down, about 400 yards from us. It constantly empties raw macerated sewage, untreated into the river regularly without any logical reason. Whether the tide is flowing or ebbing the whole area is a massive cess tank which is full of sanitary towels, condoms, needles and even babies nappies. So much for cleaning up the environment."
The letter was accompanied by photos and a daily record of the sewage and the foul smell from the treatment works from April 2000 to May 2001. They showed that sewage was observed on 171 days, and the smell was present on 66. I visited the business with officers from the Environment Agency. A report from the agency following the meeting confirmed that the operation of the treatment works fell far short of the consents order. On 28 June 1998, the agency had granted a combined sewer overflow consent in respect of the treatment works to South West Water. It was granted for the Plymouth Hoe east and west bathing waters to achieve compliance with the mandatory bathing water standards, required under the European Community bathing water directives, and to address aesthetic impacts from the discharge. The consent specified an operation that should have been better than the agency's bathing water policy requirements, and a 6 mm screening requirement to remove sewage-related debris on the discharge.
In a letter of 31 August, the agency confirmed:
"It is now known that infiltration of groundwater gaining access to the sewerage system was significantly underestimated by South West Water (SWW) and this has resulted in far more frequent operation of the CSO than expected. This discharge should be weather related, although the large size of the catchment could cause overflow to continue to operate after rain has stopped falling. SWW are required to improve the performance of the CSO as part of the AMP3 (Asset Management Plan 3) investment…Regrettably, the scheme is behind schedule…SWW have asked for additional time before this work is commenced".
An action plan has been developed and should bring overflows from the treatment works back in line with the original consents order by the end of this year. The agency is monitoring the effect of recent works to increase capacity through new plant and engineering, although I understand that a combination of additional storage for storm flows and separation of infiltration water from the sewerage system will still be necessary.
The Department has many important environmental issues on its plate, and I have not lightly used the opportunity of my second debate on water-related matters in the past three months to bring the Minister to
134WH
the Chamber. Will he let me have his observations on the legal powers available to local authorities to deal with odour problems around sewage treatment works, and will he review those powers? Will he take an interest in the work that local Environment Agency officers are doing to deal with the apparent breach of the combined sewer outflow consent? Will he also take an interest in my approaches to the director-general of Ofwat and the south-west customer service committee to ensure that the cost of this expensive nightmare is met by the shareholder, not the consumer?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that the patient people of Prince Rock, Cattedown and the other affected areas merit special consideration by South West Water for the four years of pong, pollution and misery that they have endured? I ask that in particular because, as my right hon. Friend well knows, we have the highest water bills in the country, and charges for sewage treatment form the largest part of them.
1.46 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on her success in securing a debate about the problems at the Cattedown sewage treatment works in Plymouth and on the succinct way in which she dealt with them. I have visited Plymouth several times, and I know how assiduously she tackles issues that affect her constituents and how connected she is with the local communities.
I have considerable sympathy with local residents who have had to endure the offensive odour problems around Cattedown and with those who have experienced similar problems around the works at Camel's Head and Ernesettle. In many ways, these are classic constituency problems, which most of us have encountered at one time or another. One of the strengths of this place is that we can bring our experience to bear on such matters, and when I first examined the problems at Cattedown I was reminded of problems that had arisen in my constituency when odours from a tip caused intense misery to many people in the area.
My hon. Friend is right to identify real and perceived problems and to ask whether issues are a nuisance or a threat to health. When an odour is offensive, however, the worry is genuine and palpable in the local community. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend when she talks about the relationship with the healthy living centre. There are two such centres in my constituency, and I have seen the positive influence that they can bring to bear on the health and confidence of the local community. When problems arise, they can undermine the work of such centres.
I understand that the route for resolving statutory nuisances such as odour problems around sewage treatment works, through the Environmental Protection Act 1990, does not apply, and I shall return to that in a moment. Today, I read a letter dated yesterday from the chief executive of South West Water. It sets out the efforts that the company has made and intends to make to solve the problems to the satisfaction of local residents and businesses. I shall provide my hon. Friend with a copy of the letter after the debate, and she will see that the company expresses its commitment to solving the odour problems at Cattedown by April 2002.

135WH
Furthermore, the letter sets out the action that the company will take to reduce the spill frequency of the storm water overflow from the works by the end of this year. Officials at the Environment Agency are working closely with South West Water to ensure that that deadline is met, and I have asked my officials to keep me informed of progress. I would be happy to join my hon. Friend in keeping in touch with those developments and keeping an eye on them, especially in view of her points about previous timetables. It is hoped that this and other improvement works will achieve more regular compliance with the standards of the bathing waters directive, and limit pollution of the River Plym.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about who would have to meet the costs of necessary measures. I can assure her that the people of Plymouth will not be asked to pay for putting right any mistakes made by South West Water. The price limits set by the Director-General of Water Services in 1999 and revised last December limit the bills that the company can charge its customers. Those price limits already provide for the standards and consents set by the Environment Agency, including the cost of Operation Clean Sweep. If the company finds that it costs it more, that is its risk, not that of its customers.
The water company would be able to ask the Office of Water Services—Ofwat—to look at its price limits only if it were asked to undertake measures that were not on the table in 1999 when its price limits were set. Both my Department and Ofwat have always made it clear that the control of odours and other nuisances is something that a sewerage company should be doing as a part of its day-to-day running costs, not something that requires extra funding.
I am told that the Ofwat customer services committee for the south-west, which is the statutory champion of water customers, has been energetic in pressing South West Water to solve the odour problem quickly.
Linda Gilroy: It is interesting that none of my constituents approached Ofwat. The regulator's title causes problems. It relates to water and people do not perceive that consumer committee as being able to deal with sewage issues. We should draw further attention to Ofwat's powers in that area.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The purposes for which that committee was established and its remit are clear, but I agree, from my own experience, that public knowledge and understanding of it are comparatively limited at local level. There are several issues surrounding the work of the committee that my hon. Friend may wish to explore further, along with the subject of price controls. I invite her to contact the Director-General of Water Services, Philip Fletcher, who would be happy to discuss those issues with her. We should investigate ways of making people more aware of what Ofwat is there to do on their behalf.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of statutory nuisance legislation. I am assured that there is no flaw in that legislation in terms of enabling local authorities to deal with odour nuisance from sewage treatment works. The
136WH
definition of "premises" under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and its predecessors clearly does not include sewers or sewage treatment works; nor did Parliament intend it to do so. If one examines the history of the definition, one finds that statutory nuisance provisions do not apply to public sewers and sewage treatment works and that that was established by 19th-century case law. It is not a recent development or the result of a lacuna in the recent legislation to which my hon. Friend referred. The courts held that Parliament could not have intended that magistrates, through enforcing local abatement notices, should direct how those constructing and operating such works should go about it. If that were the case, the establishment and running of a system for the benefit of a broader society could be undermined.
That is quite logical, but ensuring that there are ways of dealing with local nuisances is also important. There is no obstruction in the current situation. There is nothing to stop local authorities and water undertakings working closely together to identify problems and find solutions without having to resort to legal action. There is at the end of the day, as my hon. Friend said, the possibility of taking action through common law, although that may be more of a backstop than an approach that leads to immediate action. I would be happy to look at the history of this case to discover whether there are any lessons that should be learned. However, in the short term, we must deal with the matter.
We are committed to meeting our obligations under the urban waste water treatment and bathing water directives and, as a result, the Cattedown works have been built to treat sewage from Plymouth to the required standards of the directives. The provision of secondary treatment and ultra-violet disinfection since 1998 has had a positive effect on the quality of bathing waters at Plymouth Hoe east and west. For example, in 1999 and 2000, bathing waters in both areas passed the mandatory standard, and Plymouth west again passed in 2001. Unfortunately, Plymouth east was a marginal failure that year.
I commend my hon. Friend for the commitment and support that she has given her constituents in solving these problems. For example, she organised public meetings involving the relevant parties to ensure that everyone knew of the problems and of what was being done to solve them. I understand her concern that the problem appears to have taken longer to deal with than was desirable and than was suggested at an earlier stage. The letter that I received from South West Water, which I shall pass to her, gives assurances in that regard.
Linda Gilroy: During the procedures that Plymouth city council has followed on behalf of the residents of Cattedown, it has taken legal advice and received legal counsel's opinion. I am surprised to hear the Minister say that no powers exist under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to serving abatement notices. Will he meet the environmental protection officer to discuss that further, as it is perceived to be an issue not only by the local environmental health officer but by others?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend goes slightly beyond what I said. I referred to the definition of "premises" under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the fact that that is clearly based on earlier case law. Rather than pretend that I am an expert on the law, I shall happily consider any advice provided to my hon. Friend, whether by the local authority or anyone else, and ask my officials and those in the Environment Agency to consider that advice and respond to any points that arise.
I shall share with her the letter that I received from Mr. Robert Baty, the chief executive of South West Water, which was written only yesterday and is probably the most up-to-date communication on these matters. In addition, I shall look into the matter with her, to ensure that the timetable that has been given is adhered to, so as to end the nuisance to her constituents. At the end of the day, it is most important to ensure that her constituents enjoy a pleasant environment.
Linda Gilroy: I thank the Minister for that, and acknowledge that he is a frequent visitor to the far south-west. I hope that those visits will not cease and
138WH
that he will visit the area—and, perhaps, our healthy living centre—without having to experience the pong. I am sure that his words will be greatly appreciated by my constituents.
Alun Michael: I share my hon. Friend's desire that I should visit her area in safety, rather than find that it has a continuing problem. As I said, the important thing is that the problem should be overcome. Clearly, that cannot be done overnight and, clearly, it has gone on longer than was originally promised, and longer than is desirable.
I hope that what I have said today will give cause for optimism about ridding my hon. Friend's constituency of this nuisance. I hope, too, that everyone engaged in the matter—from the company to the Environment Agency, and to officials in my Department—will consider what can be done to accelerate the process and to learn lessons for the future, so that constituents elsewhere find that such matters are dealt with more speedily.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Organised Crime
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent successes there have been against organised crime in Northern Ireland. [33138]

  Jane Kennedy
  As chair of the Organised Crime Task Force, I pay tribute to the operational agencies for their many successes in the fight against organised crime. Let me quote just a few recent examples:On 9 January 2002, 8.4 million cigarettes were seized at Belfast docks. This success comes on top of the largest ever UK seizure of illegal cigarettes on 8 November 2001, when 42.5 million cigarettes were seized at Warrenpoint.
  In recent weeks, customs has seized 42,500 litres of illicit fuel in two operations—a fuel laundering plant in south Armagh and an illegal fuel storage bunker in County Tyrone.
  In the past two months alone, 12 people have been arrested for money-laundering or tax evasion offences and two for armed robberies; on 22 January two men were jailed for extortion offences.

  Such success demonstrates that the Government are determined to tackle organised crime activity wherever it rears its ugly head. While such activity is a regrettable part of Northern Ireland's past and present it cannot become part of the future.

  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to tackle(a) extortion and (b) trade in counterfeit goods. [33154]

  Jane Kennedy
  In Northern Ireland we are seeking to tackle and confront extortion and trade in counterfeit goods through the co-ordinated efforts of the Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) which I chair.

  The OCTF provides a multi-agency approach to tackling the range of organised criminal activity that exists in Northern Ireland, and to optimise our approach members are drawn from HM Customs and Excise, PSNI and NIO, as well as others.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on levels of crime arising from cross border smuggling. [33160]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force has identified high levels of cross border smuggling. The details can be found in the task force's threat assessment for 2001–02. Good co-operation between the PSNI, the Garda and other agencies has resulted in a number of successes against smugglers. These successes include the seizure of 80 million cigarettes in Dundalk, and the seizure of 42,500 litres of fuel from a fuel laundering plant in South Armagh.

  Terrorist Victims
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Government have done to compensate victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [33139]

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support the Government have given to the victims of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland in the last five years. [33149]

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support his Department is providing for victims of violence. [33158]

  Mr. Browne
  More than £1.5 billion has been spent in compensation for criminal injuries and damage since 1968–69. It is not possible to break these figures down into terrorist-related and other crime. We anticipate that this year the bills for criminal injuries and damage compensation to victims of crime in Northern Ireland will be £55 million and £9 million respectively.

  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Government are taking to assist people who have been the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. [33151]

  Mr. Browne
  Over £18.25 million has been allocated to support victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland: major elements include funding for the Northern Ireland memorial fund; funding for victims groups in Northern Ireland; support for the development of the Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation; support for victims of the troubles living in Great Britain and a contribution towards the devolved Administration's strategy implementation fund.

  Army Watch Towers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the removal of army watch towers on the security situation since July 2001. [33140]

  Jane Kennedy
  After the act of decommissioning by PIRA, the reduced level of threat in October allowed the chief constable to make a number of further normalisation moves including the demolition of two towers in the south Armagh area. Intelligence-led policing and good cross border co-operation has resulted in a number of successes against the activities of dissident republicans. As a result of a continued lowering of the threat the chief constable announced on 22 January a further tranche of normalisation measures.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recruitment to the Northern Ireland police force. [33141]

  Jane Kennedy
  Over 150 new recruits, appointed on a 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis, have now taken up training posts with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and appointments are continuing. The first tranche of recruits will finish training in April 2002. It is encouraging to note that the most recent recruitment competition has attracted over 4,500 applicants, of whom an unprecedented proportion of 38 per cent. are Catholic.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being put in place to prevent electoral fraud at the next election in Northern Ireland. [33142]

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being put in place to prevent electoral fraud at the next election in Northern Ireland. [33150]

  Mr. Browne
  The next scheduled election in Northern Ireland is the Assembly election on 1 May 2003. It is our intention that all the measures proposed by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, which will provide the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland with additional functions to address the problem of electoral fraud there, will be in force for that election.

  War Graves
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure that the graves of Ulster soldiers who died in the first world war are not affected by plans to extend Paris Charles de Gaulle airport. [33143]

  Dr. John Reid
  I met a senior representative from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on 11 December to express my concern that the building of a proposed third airport for Paris could affect a number of Somme war graves.

  The French authorities have not yet defined the final boundaries of the airfield for this airport, but have assured the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that all war graves in the area will be treated with the greatest respect.

  Violent Crime
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the level of violent crime during the past year. [33144]

  Jane Kennedy
  During the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001, 20,626 violent crimes were recorded in Northern Ireland, compared with 19,034 recorded in the same period the previous year. This represents an increase of 8.4 per cent. During the same period, the clearance rate for violent crime dropped from 56.2 per cent. to 40.9 per cent., a decrease of 15.3 per cent.

  Please note that the statistics for the calendar year 2001 are provisional and caution should therefore be exercised when comparing same with the previous year which are finalised.

  Policing
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of the police and security services to discuss the policing situation. [33145]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State meets regularly with the Chief Constable, the GOC and his senior security advisers when a range of security issues including policing are discussed.

  US Co-operation
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance is being provided by the United States Government and their agencies to assist the Police Service of Northern Ireland in combating crime. [33146]

  Dr. John Reid
  Both the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and I have on-going contact with a range of authorities on policing matters. My recent visit to the US gave me a particular opportunity to do this.

  I was especially interested to hear of the American approach to organised criminals and the mafia culture. Through the Organised Crime Task Force, we were already adopting the New York approach of establishing multi-agency groups to tackle specific crime problems or particular criminal gangs. The idea is simple but effective—identify the problem and put together the agencies who can tackle it.

  I am also delighted that joint FBI/PSNI training was restored in December by President Bush and I am convinced that this type of co-operation and training with US law enforcement agencies will contribute to our commitment of ensuring an effective and efficient police service in Northern Ireland.

  Human Rights
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent action the Government have taken to improve human rights in Northern Ireland. [33147]

  Mr. Browne
  The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 played a major role in safeguarding human rights throughout the UK as a whole, including Northern Ireland. The Human Rights Act puts human rights at the heart of policy making and operations for all public authorities and means that all public authorities, including courts and the police, must act compatibly with the convention rights. It gives further effect throughout the UK to the rights and freedoms set out in the ECHR and provides the basis for a new culture of rights and responsibilities.

  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 restricts the Northern Ireland Assembly's powers to ensure it can only pass legislation that is compatible with convention rights and requires all NI Ministers and Departments to act compatibly. The Act also created the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission whose remit includes making sure laws and practices conform to the European convention, promoting awareness of human rights and offering advice and guidance to individuals. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is currently considering the scope for a Bill of Rights to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.

  The report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (the Patten report) recommended that there should be a comprehensive programme of action to focus policing in Northern Ireland on a human rights based approach.

  The setting up in 2000 of the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland, an independent impartial police complaints system. This was set up under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
  355W
  The Independent International Decommissioning Commission exists to remove the tools of terrorism, which has been the biggest source of denial of basic human rights in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years.

  The Criminal Justice Review Group recommended that human rights be made central to the justice system. In formulating their recommendations, the review group looked not only at the European convention on human rights, but also at 15 other international human rights standards and instruments. The entire review was drafted with these principles in mind.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the economic and social impacts of the Good Friday agreement on Northern Ireland. [33148]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Belfast agreement has had a positive impact on many aspects of life in Northern Ireland. The economic and social benefits are perhaps some of the most noticeable to arise from the agreement. Increased investor confidence has led to growth in the retail, construction and manufacturing sectors, helping to keep the economy buoyant and unemployment at a low level. While at the same time, more young people are staying to make their way in Northern Ireland society, now rooted firmly in the principles of individual rights and equality of opportunity for all.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what aspects of the Good Friday agreement remain to be implemented. [33156]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale),Official Report, columns 191–92.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the Belfast agreement in the last six months. [33153]

  Dr. John Reid
  Significant progress has been made. The devolved institutions are stabilising following the election of a new First and Deputy First Minster. The SDLP have signalled their support of the new policing arrangements, leading to the establishment of the Police Board and subsequent unanimous agreement by that board on a new badge for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The IRA have carried out a significant act of decommissioning involving ammunition, arms and explosives. We must now build on these developments to ensure that the implementation of the agreement continues on all fronts.

  Parades Commission
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will bring forward legislation to permit televising of meetings of the Parades Commission. [33152]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have no plans to legislate for the televising of internal meetings of the Parades Commission.
  356W
  The operation of the Parades Commission and the legislation under which it was established is currently being reviewed by Sir George Quigley.

  Road Safety Campaigns
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent road safety campaigns the police service of Northern Ireland has mounted in schools; and if he will make a statement. [33155]

  Jane Kennedy
  Road safety education is a key element of the PSNI strategy to reduce death and injuries on the roads. It forms an integral part of the PSNI community safety programme. The road safety message is delivered to schoolchildren ranging from Key Stage 1 (young primary) to Key Stage 4 (15 to 18 year-old).

  Because the driving behaviour of young male drivers is a matter of concern in Northern Ireland, the PSNI has developed a multi-agency roadsafe roadshow for Key Stage 4 schoolchildren. In addition to the police service, the fire service, various elements of the medical service, a voluntary group and seriously injured victims make contributions. The PSNI is currently developing a teaching resource pack to build upon the success of the roadsafe roadshow.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on decommissioning of terrorist weapons. [33157]

  Jane Kennedy
  The IICD reported on 23 October that it had witnessed the IRA putting a quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives completely beyond use. The IICD described this as a significant event. This move by the IRA was historic and gives the clearest possible signal that it is moving away from violence for good. It is imperative that we now see further progress in the transition away from violence. All paramilitary groups should now build on this very significant progress.

  Real IRA
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to combat the Real IRA; and if he will make a statement. [33159]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is a daily exchange of security information between the Garda and the RUC, and the security forces on both sides of the border co-operate frequently in planned and co-ordinated operations against the activities of dissident republicans. In the last year 42 dissidents have been arrested within the two jurisdictions.

  Government Structures
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the legislative and Government structures and institutions operating in Northern Ireland. [33161]

  Dr. John Reid
  Since devolution in December 1999 local politicians have acted with great commitment, integrity and energy to represent their constituents' needs, and the needs of Northern Ireland more generally, in a fair and effective manner on issues of real concern to ordinary people. Since the election of a new First and Deputy First
  357W
  Minister last autumn the devolved institutions have continued to stabilise, which I believe demonstrates the widespread support that devolution has throughout Northern Ireland, on all sides of the community. In addition, the structures put in place to develop North-South co-operation continue to function smoothly. All of this contributes to the normalisation of politics and society in Northern Ireland—a development which the Government are committed to giving their wholehearted support.

  Golden Jubilee
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee in Northern Ireland. [33162]

  Dr. John Reid
  Responsibility for arrangements to celebrate Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee falls to the devolved Administration. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is co-ordinating plans for community celebrations throughout the Province. To date, over 300 events and projects have been planned.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to change the(a) departmental expenditure limit and (b) administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36575]

  Dr. John Reid
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Northern Ireland Office DEL will be increased by £36,363,000 from £1,078,374,000 to £1,114,737,000 and the gross administration costs limits will be increased by £21,336,000 from £138,069,000 to £159,405,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £

  Resources

  Change

  31,973

  New DEL

  1,056,836

  of which:

  Voted

  1,056,836

  Non-voted

  0

  Capital

  Change

  4,390

  New DEL

  57,901

  of which:

  Voted

  57,901

  Non-voted

  0

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  The DEL shown in the Main Estimate was overstated by £4,947,000;
  the take up of End Year Flexibility of £28,818,000 of which £16,896,000 relates to administration costs which cover prison officer redundancy payments, increased costs associated with
  358W
  elections in Northern Ireland, the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Political Talks and Forensic Science Northern Ireland;
  the take up of Departmental Unallocated Provision of £9,767,000;
  net transfer £1,148,000 to the Northern Ireland Executive;
  net transfer of £2,217,000 to UK Departments which covers £2,200,000 to the Court Service for transferred functions, £213,000 to the Home Office for Criminal Cases Review Commission and £4,000 for our contribution to the Group European States Against Corruption, £33,000 to the Cabinet Office for fast streamers and £233,000 from Home Office Legal Advisers Branch;
  a virement of £1,700,000 to current from capital.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  the take up of End Year Flexibility of £5,014,000;
  the take up of Departmental Unallocated Provision of £576,000;
  increase of £500,000 from Capital Modernisation Fund;
  a virement of £1,700,000 from capital to current.

  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers charged to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore added to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Northern Ireland Executive in 2001–02 will be increased by £244,287,000 from £5,758,005,000 to £6,002,283,000. The increases reflect:
  the take up of End Year Flexibility of £234,842,000;
  £4,426,000 in respect of the Capital Modernisation Fund;
  £4,278,000 in respect of Agri-Monetary Compensation;
  £1,893,000 for costs incurred in dealing with foot and mouth disease—of which £1,000,000 is in respect of Business Rate Relief, £398,000 Assistance for Rural Businesses and £495,000 for Charitable Match Funding;
  £164,000 for the Evidence Based Policy Fund;
  transfer of £50,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions;
  net transfer of £1,148,000 from the NIO;
  transfer of £2,130,000 to Department of Health;
  transfers of £284,000 to the Scottish Executive;
  transfer of £18,000 to the National Assembly for Wales;
  transfer of £25,000 to the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency;
  transfer of £59,000 to the Inland Revenue;
  transfer of £7,000 to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  The increases will be offset by a Charge on the Department Expenditure Limit Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of Public expenditure

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel (Recognition on Retirement)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to recognise formally the contribution made by armed forces personnel at the point at which they retire from active service. [25357]

  Mr. Ingram
  All service personnel can qualify for a long service and good conduct medal after 15 years of exemplary service, with a bar awarded after a further 15 years. Other medals are awarded to those who have distinguished themselves through exceptional service or bravery. There is no single arrangement in the armed
  359W
  forces for recognising service at the point of retirement though all three provide a certificate of the qualifications gained in service and, subject to the satisfactory completion of service, a character reference which can be used in seeking further employment. Those completing at least five years' service are also entitled to resettlement training which increases in recognition of greater length of service. As part of the Veterans' Initiative, and in cooperation with representatives of the veterans' organisations, we are also looking at the feasibility and merits of a "Veterans' Identity Card" which would allow recognition (and real benefits) of the special status of those who have given service to the country in the armed forces.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to encourage participation by his Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33539]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is in touch with the Department for International Development which leads on this issue and which is providing £120,000 to the Fair Trade Foundation over three years (200–03) in support of its efforts to target new groups through its annual fair trade fortnight campaigns. We do not, however, have plans for direct participation in the event.

  Defence Expenditure
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what UK defence expenditure was in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region and expressed as expenditure per head of population. [33951]

  Mr. Ingram
  A breakdown of defence expenditure by region is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I have tasked my officials to examine the data held to see if a broad indication of regional expenditure can be provided.

  Information on UK defence expenditure for each of the last 10 years, and as expenditure per head of population, is outlined in the table.

  Total UK Defence expenditure (£ million)1

  UK mid year resident population (£000)2

  UK Defence expenditure/head (£)

  1991–92

  24,438

  57,814

  423

  1992–93

  22,910

  58,013

  395

  1993–94

  22,757

  58,198

  391

  1994–95

  22,562

  58,401

  386

  1995–96

  21,517

  58,612

  367

  1996–97

  22,345

  58,807

  380

  1997–98

  21,610

  59,014

  366

  1998–99

  22,475

  59,237

  379

  1999–2000

  22,549

  59,501

  379

  2000–01

  23,538

  59,756

  394

  1UK defence expenditure figures are the "Adjusted Defence budget" taken from table 1.3 of UK Defence Statistics 2001. The figures are VAT inclusive and at current prices. The "Adjusted Defence Budget" takes account of major definitional changes in defence spending and of major transfers of responsibility to and from Government Departments to provide figures on a consistent basis. Figures exclude receipts from the sale of the married quarters estate that were appropriated onto the defence votes.

  360W

  2UK mid-year population estimates are taken from table 2.1 of the Office for National Statistics' "Monthly Digest of Statistics—January 2002".

  Afghanistan
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what continuing role he plans for the armed forces in Afghanistan. [34041]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have made our campaign objectives clear, including to bring Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda to justice and to ensure that the link between Afghanistan and terrorism is broken for good. The United Kingdom is also contributing to, and currently leading, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul.

  So far, some 1,700 British troops have deployed to Kabul out of a total of about 3,500 troops from 15 countries. Although we plan to hand over command of the ISAF by the end of April and reduce the number of British troops involved, we will continue to contribute to the force. We will also continue to support the Coalition's efforts under Operation Enduring Freedom to deal with the surviving al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan.

  TSC 503 Satellite System
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the introduction of the TSC 503 satellite system. [34400]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK's TSC 503 satellite system provides a transportable satellite communications ground terminal system compatible with UK Skynet, NATO and US military satellites.

  The TSC 503 terminal system has a significantly increased data transfer capability compared to the current SATCOM terminals.
  So far, about half the terminals have been delivered and training of service personnel is taking place. Full operational capability is planned by the end of this year.

  Army Establishment
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Army is manned to peace establishment. [34491]

  Mr. Ingram
  The strength of the whole Army (as at 1 January 2002) is around 94 per cent. of the current peacetime unit establishment requirement.

  British Forces Post Office (Afghanistan)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 13W, on Afghanistan, if he will publish the reduced rates under the BFPO number registered for parcels to be sent to Afghanistan; and what is the average number of deliveries of post per month to BFPO numbers relating to Afghanistan. [35818]

  Mr. Ingram
  The BFPO numbers applicable to operations in Afghanistan are BFPO 767 Muscat and BFPO 768 Thumrait, BFPO 761 Shalalah having closed on 21 January.
  361W
  Mail is flown from the UK to Muscat six times per week whence it is carried by road, a two hour journey, to Thumrait. Mail for Kabul is then flown from Thumrait daily by the Royal Air Force. A total of 1,000 kg per day is despatched to Muscat and 475 kg per day forwarded to Kabul. As this is a recent service monthly averages are not available.

  A full parcels service (up to 30 kg) is not available, but small packets up to 2 kg are sent at a maximum cost of £6.56.

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many PVR applications have been made by personnel from(a) 5, (b) 11,(c) 25,(d) 43 and (e) 111 Squadrons in each of the past five years. [35652]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of applications for premature voluntary release from the RAF Air Defence Squadrons, in each of the last five years is shown as follows:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  5 Squadron

  Officers

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Airmen

  3

  2

  2

  8

  5

  11 Squadron

  Officers

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Airmen

  0

  4

  2

  2

  5

  25 Squadron

  Officers

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Airmen

  2

  4

  6

  5

  4

  43 Squadron

  Officers

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Airmen

  3

  6

  5

  3

  6

  111

  Squadron

  Officers

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Airmen

  4

  2

  2

  7

  7

  1Figures up to 1 January 2002

  Departmental Bodies (Security)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action will be taken against those departmental bodies which fail to take adequate security measures in their establishments. [35609]

  Dr. Moonie
  Depending on the circumstances of the case, a range of informal, formal, administrative, disciplinary and even criminal options would be considered and pursued as appropriate.

  A range of control processes is in place to ensure that adequate security measures are taken. There is a regime of security surveys, inspections and audits operating in the Ministry of Defence. Standards and policy are set centrally, with advice and guidance provided to departmental bodies to enable them to carry out their security responsibilities.

  Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) establishment pilot posts and(b) pilots there are in (i) 5, (ii) 11, (iii), 25, (iv). 43 and (v) 111 Squadrons. [35651]
  362W
  Mr. Ingram
  The table details the number of established pilot posts and the number of pilots there are in 5 Squadron, 11 Squadron, 25 Squadron, 43 Squadron and 111 Squadron. These figures are as at 31 December 2001.

  Squadron

  Establishment

  Current manning

  5

  18

  12

  11

  18

  13

  25

  18

  14

  43

  19

  15

  111

  19

  16

  MOD Security (Private Contractors)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made by the Ministry of Defence to private defence contractors on increasing security measures. [35614]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not provide defence contractors with advice on security measures. This is the responsibility of the Security Service who, for those contractors undertaking particularly sensitive contracts, provide oversight and advice on specific threats and counter-measures.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made in the use of private security contractors to guard Ministry of Defence establishments since 11 September. [35612]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since the events of 11 September 2001 there has been no change to the Ministry of Defence policy for the use of private security contractors to provide unarmed guarding to some parts of the Defence Estate.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private security contractors are employed in guarding Ministry of Defence establishments; and if he will list them. [35611]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 16 private security contractors employed in unarmed guarding of the Ministry of Defence establishments. They are:

  Initial Security Ltd.

  Tyco (formerly known as Thom)

  Reliance Security Ltd.

  Legion Security plc

  Chubb Guarding Services Ltd.

  Serco

  Securicor Guarding Ltd.

  RCO Support Services Ltd.

  Galago Ltd.

  Centuryan Security Ltd.

  Medway Ports

  Securitas (UK) Ltd.

  Dardan Security Ltd.

  ISS Support Services Ltd.

  Securi-Guard Ltd.

  Solo Security Services Ltd.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much has been spent on timber for the refurbishment of the MOD building; [35692]

  (2) what action was taken by his Department to ensure that timber procured for the refurbishment of the MOD Building was sourced (a) sustainably and (b) legally; [35691]

  (3) how much certified timber has been used in the refurbishment of the MOD building; and what proportion of the total timber purchased for this refurbishment this represents. [35690]

  Dr. Moonie
  The minimum amount of timber will be used in the project so as to comply with current industry (notably fire) standards. The total cost is estimated by the construction contractor to be in the region of £500,000.

  Ministry of Defence policy is that all timber or timber products should be procured from sustainable and legal sources. This is reflected in the PFI contract with Modus Services plc for the redevelopment of Main Building and is in turn in Modus's contract with the construction contractor, Skanska Whitehall.

  All timber used in the redevelopment will therefore be from a certified sustainable source.

  HMS Coventry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a ship named HMS Coventry. [34920]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are many worthy and suitable names deserving of recognition when consideration is given to naming ships. Although there are no immediate plans to use this name, Coventry with her six antecedents and 10 battle honours will certainly merit consideration in the future.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to remove Ministry of Defence police from QinetiQ establishments before the organisation's proposed flotation. [35613]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Police Federation (DPF) has been consulted concerning the proposal to withdraw the Ministry of Defence police officers from three QinetiQ operated sites: Pendine, Shoeburyness and West Freugh. The consultation was concluded on 25 January 2002, and the withdrawal date has been provisionally set for 31 July 2002. However, I have agreed to meet with representatives of the DPF to discuss this on 12 March.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft project. [36175]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) is planned to replace the RAF's fleet of VC10 and TriStar air to air refuelling/air transport aircraft towards the end of the decade. The current fleet is based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Bids for this prospective PFI programme were received from two 364W
  consortia in July 2001. Both bidders have proposed the continued use of RAF Brize Norton as the main operating base for the FSTA fleet and our negotiations with them are proceeding on this basis. Subject to satisfactory progress in these negotiations, we expect to decide later this year whether PFI offers the best value for money and, if it does, which of the two consortiums is our preferred bidder.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30099]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  In the period 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000, the cost of newspapers, magazines and periodicals purchased centrally by the Department was £9,096. In 2000–01, the cost was £13,639.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32004]

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to change the Scotland departmental expenditure limits for 2001–02. [36574]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be reduced by £76,755,000 from £17,173,692,000 to £17,096,937,000.

  The DEL reduction takes account of the following:
  a reduction of £50,000,000 arising from the Scottish Transport Group pension disbursement;
  a reduction of £32,000,000 to offset a draw forward of EU structural funds agreed in the previous year;
  a reduction of £1,000,000 following a revision to the capital modernisation fund allocation announced in the winter supplementary estimate;
  an increase of £3,000,000 for the active communities initiative;
  an increase of £13,804,000 for costs relating to the Lockerbie trial;
  an increase of £661,000 for some additional policing in the wake of 11 September;
  an increase of £600,000 to support tourism following foot and mouth disease;
  an increase of £1,235,000 for rural business recovery;
  increases of £1,528,000 from match funding for charitable donations to the Addington fund for foot and mouth disease.

  The DEL reduction also includes the following transfers to and from other Government Departments, amounting to a net reduction of £11,883,000. These are:
  net transfers of £84,000 from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES);

  365W
  net transfers of £8,540,000 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA);
  a transfer of £1,075,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP);
  a transfer of £73,000 to the National Assembly for Wales;
  net transfers of £4,696,000 from the Home Office;
  a transfer of £284,000 from the Northern Ireland Executive;
  net transfers of £26,489,000 to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  All of these changes relate to the resource budget, and the capital budget of £100,000 is unchanged.

  An addition to the Scotland DEL for 2002–03 of £13,619 million will be made in respect of adjustments allowed for in the statement of funding policy, in relation to the impact of local authorities' decisions regarding council tax and rents on council tax rebate for 2000–01 and 2001–02.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ishtiaq Ahmed
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reason the Crown Prosecution Service is citing public interest immunity as a ground for not disclosing a document requested in the case of Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, HMP Coldingley; and if he will make a statement. [34466]

  The Solicitor-General
  The case of Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed is presently before the Court of Appeal following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. A directions hearing is scheduled to take place on 21 February 2002. The court will deal with the question of disclosure when it gives directions on the future conduct of the case.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Appointments Commission (Roadshows)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the House of Lords Appointments Commission will announce the timetable for the next round of roadshows and destinations. [34566]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Appointments Commission is still considering its timetable for regional events, and will make an announcement as soon as it has reached a decision.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met officials from the UN regarding the Global Fund for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. [34949]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development meets regularly with representatives of the UN and its specialised agencies to discuss a range of issues, including progress on the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM). My 366W
  officials have been instrumental in getting the fund set up effectively and have worked in close co-operation with WHO, UNAIDS and many others. The UK has a seat on the GFATM board along with WHO and UNAIDS who are both ex officio members.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of levels of tuberculosis in the Badghis province of Afghanistan; and what action is being taken to treat those with tuberculosis. [34952]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development is not aware of any quantitative assessment by humanitarian agencies of levels of tuberculosis in Badghis province. However as one of the most vulnerable regions of Afghanistan, levels of communicable diseases such as tuberculosis are likely to be significant.

  My Department has allocated significant funds to agencies working to improve disease surveillance and the provision of emergency health supplies, while assisting the rehabilitation of health facilities—in particular to build up the capacity of the Afghan Interim Administration's Ministry of Public Health. This includes £5 million to the World Health Organisation, £8 million to UNICEF, £5 million to the Red Cross movement, as well as support to local and international non-governmental organisations.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action was taken by her Department to ensure that timber procured for the recent refurbishment of the International Development building on 1 Palace street was sourced(a) sustainably and (b) legally. [35678]

  Hilary Benn
  The contractual documentation as specified by my Department for the refurbishment work on 1 Palace street, included our standards for the use of sustainable sources of hardwood, timber products and plywood. This required all such procurement to be carried out in accordance with standards set by the Building Research Environmental Evaluation Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) in relation to materials and the environmental implications of materials selection.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been spent on timber for the recent refurbishment of the International Development building on 1 Palace Street. [35677]

  Hilary Benn
  Approximately £350,000 was spent on timber as part of this refurbishment.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much certified timber has been used in the recent refurbishment of the International Development building on 1 Palace Street; and what proportion of total timber purchased for this refurbishment this represents. [35676]

  Hilary Benn
  The following volumes of timber were used in the project.
  367W

  Volume

  Softwood carcassing timber

  6,000m

  Softwood plaster grounds

  2,500m

  Veneered doors

  590

  Softwood timber battens

  2,800m

  Protection boards

  1,250

  Battens to protection

  8,000m

  Miscellaneous timber

  1,100m

  Of the above, around 98 per cent. was certified. The remainder represents a small number of hardwood doors, which we were required to use within the Grade II listed section of the building under the relevant planning regulations. These doors were obtained from existing stocks from managed forests.

  EU Overseas Development Assistance
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much per year has been spent in euros at current exchange rates on overseas development assistance as defined by the DAC by(a) the EU and (b) the EU and the 15 member states, in each of the last five years. [34680]

  Hilary Benn
  The latest available data on the EC and the member states' overseas development assistance (oda) are for 2000. The data show a slight increase in EU-wide ODA flows despite a gradual decline in the European Commission's ODA expenditure.

  Total net ODA (ecu/euro current prices)

  Billion

  EC

  EC + member states

  1996

  ecu 5.7

  ecu 19.9

  1997

  ecu 5.5

  ecu 19.8

  1998

  ecu 5.4

  ecu 19.8

  1999

  euro 5.2

  euro 20.4

  20001

  euro 4.5

  euro 21.4

  1Provisional

  Source:

  OECD DAC online database.

TREASURY

  Tax Credits (Fraud)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 515W, how many of the 28 prosecutions for tax credit fraud concerned tax credits obtained to the value of(a) less than £1,000, (b) £1,000 to £4,999, (c) £5,000 to £9,999 and (d) more than £10,000; and if he will give the same breakdown for the seven prosecutions which resulted in a custodial sentence. [35256]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  Prosecutions:

  (a) less than £1,000—nil

  (b) £1,000 to £4,999—20

  (c) £5,000 to £9,999—5

  (d) more than £10,000—3

  368W
  Custodial sentences:

  (a) less than £1,000—nil

  (b) £1,000 to £4,999—2

  (c) £5,000 to £9,999—2

  (d) more than £10,000—3.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of applications for tax credits have been identified as high risk for fraud or noncompliance by the Inland Revenue since the inception of tax credits; and how many of the applications so identified turn out to be fraudulent or non-compliant. [32643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: Since the introduction in October 1999 of working families tax credit (WFTC) and disabled person's tax credit (DPTC), 60,614 applications were identified as being appropriate for further investigation up to December 2001. This equates to around 1 per cent. of the total number of applications received for tax credits during the same period. From this number, 9,665 investigations proved instances of fraudulent/non-compliant activity.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been(a) paid and (b) ordered to be paid as a result of the prosecutions for working families tax credit fraud. [35165]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Three compensation orders have been made by the courts, totalling £6,020. There has also been one confiscation order, to the value of £100,000.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place for the mutual exchange of relevant information with overseas authorities regarding tax credit fraud. [35173]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The United Kingdom has a number of agreements with overseas authorities allowing the exchange of information relating to tax or social security matters. Where relevant, such information can be used to combat tax credit fraud.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 515W, how many of the seven custodial sentences were for (a) less than six months,(b) six to 12 months and (c) more than 12 months; and what the length of the longest custodial sentence was. [35255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Of the seven custodial sentences:(a) three were for less than six months; (b) there were none between six and 12 months; and (c) the remaining four sentences were for over 12 months. The longest sentence was for two and a half years.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to amend the Office for National Statistics departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36860]

  Ruth Kelly
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Office for National Statistics DEL will be increased by £495,000 from £197,350,000 to £197,845,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £6,540,000 from £184,631,000 to £191,171,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table.
  369W

  £

  Resources

  Change

  6,540,000

  New DEL

  191,970,000

  of which:

  Voted

  191,118,000

  Non-voted

  852,000

  Capital

  Change

  -6,045,000

  New DEL

  5,875,000

  of which:

  Voted

  5,875,000

  Non-voted

  0

  The increase in the resource element of the DEL is due to two factors. Firstly, there is a transfer of £6,000,000 from Capital DEL to Resource DEL so that ONS has the appropriate level of cover in the budget to meet this year's spending pressures.

  Secondly, a transfer to ONS of £585,000 administration costs from the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit in relation to work to develop the Neighbourhood Statistics programme is partially offset by a transfer of £45,000 administration costs from ONS to the Department for Education and Skills in respect of data development work associated with the same programme.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the £6,000,000 transfer to Resource DEL referred to above. It also includes a transfer of £45,000 capital from ONS to the Department for Education and Skills in respect of data development work associated with the Neighbourhood Statistics programme.

  An increase of £5,108,000 of Annually Managed Expenditure is required in respect of provision for early retirement costs.

  The net increase in the DEL will be offset by transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to change HM Customs and Excise departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36859]

  Mr. Boateng
  The HM Customs and Excise DEL will be reduced by £30,000 from £1,128,571,000 to £1,128,541,000 and the administration costs limit reduced by £30,000 from £950,783,000 to £950,753,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table.

  £

  Resource

  Capital

  Change

  -30,000

  —

  New DEL

  1,038,529,000

  90,012,000

  Of which:

  Voted

  1,033,529,000

  89,012,000

  Non-voted

  5,000,000

  1,000,000

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a decrease in administration costs of £30,000 transferred to DEFRA in respect of the CAP export licensing Invest to Save Budget.
  370W
  There is therefore, no addition to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to change HM Treasury's departmental expenditure limits and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36861]

  Ruth Kelly
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary, HM Treasury's DEL will be increased by £3,020,000 from £244,845,000 to £247,865,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £1,000,000 from £106,689,000 to £107,689,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  1,020

  2,000

  New DEL

  230,788

  17,077

  Of which:

  Voted

  201,417

  16,777

  Non-voted

  29,371

  300

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the take up of administration costs EYF (£1,000,000) to meet the additional costs of the Treasury's planned programme of work, including set-up costs for the investment in the Troika insurance company and the funding of the PUK call-off contract; take up of programme costs EYF (£100,000) to meet the increased demand for UK coins; and a transfer of £80,000 programme expenditure from the OGC to the National Assembly for Wales for an e-pilot project the NAW is carrying out on behalf of the OGC.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from a further reclassification of programme expenditure EYF to capital provision (£2,000,000) for the service relating to the indemnity and insurance cover HM Treasury has offered to aviation companies in the wake of the events of 11 September. The cover is in the form of a loan note with the Troika Insurance Company Ltd.

  The increases will be offset by a change to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Student Loans
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will change the rules governing entitlement to working families tax credit so that student loans are not counted as income. [34866]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no plans to disregard completely student loans within working families tax credit.

  Tax Credits Bill
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the administrative cost of the transfer of functions to the Treasury and the Inland Revenue under the provisions of clauses 45 and 46 of the Tax Credits Bill. [35181]
  371W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The transfer of child benefit to the Inland Revenue will provide parents with a more streamlined system of support, by ensuring child benefit and the new child tax credit are run by a single organisation.

  There will be only minor changes in child benefit rules when responsibility moves to the Inland Revenue and existing staff and IT systems will be transferred. We anticipate that the administrative costs of transfer will be minimal.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to keep a record of the persons falling within the provisions of subparagraph 2(b) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 of the Tax Credits Bill who may be supplied with information relating to tax credits, child benefit or guardian's allowance for health; and if he plans to make the record publicly available; [35179]

  (2) what functions relating to health he expects to be prescribed under the provisions of subparagraph 2 of paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 of the Tax Credits Bill; and when he expects draft regulations to be available. [35177]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The provisions of paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 will allow the Inland Revenue to provide information to the Department of Health and equivalent Departments within Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and persons providing services to those departments to enable them to carry out the functions specified in the Tax Credits Bill. Information will be provided to assist them in identifying families on low income who are entitled to free access to certain health services.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the decision to transfer the functions of the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of child benefit and guardian's allowance to the Treasury under clause 45 of the Tax Credits Bill. [35185]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Prime Minister announced in June last year the transfer to the Treasury and Inland Revenue of responsibility for child benefit and guardian's allowance, after careful consideration of the best way to administer support for children when the new tax credit for families with children is introduced.

  We believe that parents will get the best service if a single organisation administers child benefit and guardian's allowance alongside the child tax credit. The Social Security Select Committee supported this view in their second report on the integrated child credit published on 22 March 2001

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Tax Credits Bill (as amended) on the amount of overpaid child benefit and guardian's allowance which is recovered. [35169]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The power to recover overpayments of child benefit by deduction from other benefits is used in only a small minority of cases. It is estimated that removing this power will have a minimal effect on recoveries of overpaid child benefit.
  372W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effects of the provisions of(a) Clause 52 and (b) Clause 53 of the Tax Credits Bill on the number of persons receiving child benefit. [35168]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The current estimate is that the numbers affected by these provisions will be minimal.

  The purpose of these changes is to make some minor adjustments to the rules on entitlement to child benefit, in order to align the rules with those proposed for child tax credit.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to consult(a) employers and (b) other interested parties on the issuing of notices by the Board of the Inland Revenue under Clause 42 of the Tax Credits Bill (as amended). [35172]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Informal consultation with employers and other groups is continuing on a range of points relating to the introduction of the new tax credits, including the issue of notices by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects the provisions of Schedule 5 of the Tax Credits Bill to be used in tackling fraud and non-compliance. [35175]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes. Schedule 5 to the Bill enables information provided to, or by, the Inland Revenue to be used to provide a joined-up service to claimants, and to help tackle fraud and non-compliance.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of the transfer of the functions of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under Section 80 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to him as a result of subsection (1)(c) of Clause 45 of the Tax Credits Bill. [35171]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This provision part of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to offset payments akin to child benefit paid in another member state against child benefit paid for the same child in the UK. The power under the Act is not currently exercised. In common with the other functions relating to policy on entitlement to child benefit, the tax credits Bill transfers the power, which relates solely to child benefit, to the Treasury.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he plans to give to the Board of the Inland Revenue or any person providing services to it about the use and disclosure of information under the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 5 of the Tax Credits Bill. [35176]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Staff responsible for pooling information under these provisions will have clear instructions and adequate training to ensure that such pooling is within the scope of the provisions, and meets the twin objectives of providing a joined-up service to customers and countering non-compliance.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many staff he expects to be employed by the Treasury in order to discharge the functions transferred to it under Clause 45 of the Tax Credits Bill;
  373W
  and how many staff he expects to be transferred to the Treasury from (a) the Department for Work and Pensions and (b) the Northern Ireland Office as a result of Clause 45; [35170]

  (2) how many staff he expects to be employed by the Inland Revenue in order to discharge the functions conferred on it by Clause 46 of the Tax Credits Bill; and how many staff he expects to be transferred to the Inland Revenue from (a) the Child Benefit Centre, (b) the Department for Work and Pensions and (c) the Northern Ireland Office as a result of this provision. [35184]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Currently around 2,200 staff in the Department for Work and Pensions, Child Benefit Centre in Great Britain and 150 staff in the Department for Social Development, Child Benefit Office in Northern Ireland work on the administration of child benefit. To ensure that their expertise is not lost on the transfer of responsibilities, these staff will move to the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Inland Revenue has for training those who will discharge the appellate functions transferred to it under the provisions of Clause 46 of the Tax Credits Bill. [35182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Credits Bill transfers responsibility for the administration of child benefit to the Board of Inland Revenue. However, child benefit will remain a social security benefit and any appeals relating to child benefit decisions will continue to be heard under the existing arrangements—in the first instance, by the Appeals Service.

  The Government will, of course, ensure that members of appeal tribunals continue to receive training to allow them to discharge their responsibilities appropriately.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make regulations under Clause 54 of the Tax Credits Bill in relation to the carrying out of functions relating to tax credit, child benefit and guardian's allowance by job centre staff other than those in a Jobcentre Plus. [35166]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My officials are working closely with those in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland to ensure that any regulations to be made under clause 54 of the Tax Credits Bill will allow all appropriate staff, regardless of the administrative framework within which they work, to carry out specified functions relating to tax credits, child benefit and guardian's allowance.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the IT systems of(a) the Inland Revenue, (b) the Department for Work and Pensions and (c) the Northern Ireland Office concerned in the use of information under the provisions of Schedule 5 of the Tax Credits Bill. [35174]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The relevant Departments are already working to ensure that information can be exchanged as necessary between their respective IT systems.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to keep a record of persons falling within the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of 374W
  paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 of the Tax Credits Bill who may be supplied with information relating to tax credits, child benefit or guardian's allowance. [35178]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 will allow the Inland Revenue to provide information held in relation to child benefit to the Department for Education and Skills, and persons providing services to that Department, to enable them to carry out the functions specified in the Bill. This will enable the new 'Connexions Service' to identify and assist young people who need help in finding alternative work, education or training.

  The provision replicates a power provided in the Learning and Skills Act 2000.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to keep a record of persons providing services to the Inland Revenue in connection with the provision of tax credits who fall within the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 5 of the Tax Credits Bill; and if he plans to make the record publicly available. [35180]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The provisions about persons providing services to the Inland Revenue enable the Inland Revenue's IT partners to pool information for Inland Revenue purposes in the same way as that information could be pooled if it was held directly by the Inland Revenue itself. Information about major companies providing services to the Inland Revenue, such as its IT partners, is already publicly available.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent so far on rectifying the problems with the NIRS2 computer system, broken down by year. [35286]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Payments for the NIRS2 computer system have been made in accordance with the contract. This includes any reduction attributable to service failure. No additional charges have been incurred for rectifying problems with NIRS2.

  Share Option Taxation
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes made to the taxation of share options since 1 May 1997. [32927]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Employee share schemes are at the centre of the Government's productivity and enterprise agenda. Since 1 May 1997 we have made the following changes to encourage greater use of share schemes and to ensure flexibility and fairness in the tax treatment of employee share options.

  Finance Act 1998: extension of the definition of "long options" from seven to 10 years.

  6 April 1999: alignment of national insurance treatment of share options with the PAYE rules. The Social Security Act 1998 introduced an amendment to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
  375W
  Finance Act 2000: introduction of Enterprise Management Incentives to help small companies recruit and retain the staff they need to grow.

  28 July 2000: introduction of a concession to allow employers to agree with their employee option holders that the latter would bear the whole or part of the employer's national insurance charge on exercise of their options. The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

  Finance Act 2001: improvements to the Enterprise Management Incentives.

  From 11 May 2001: a further concession to allow companies which had granted options between April 1999 and May 2000 to cap their NIC liabilities. The Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Act 2001.

  1 January 2002: Statutory Instrument 3799/2001 doubled the gross asset test for companies to qualify for Enterprise Management Incentives from £15 million to £30 million.

  Millionaires
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of millionaires in the UK in each year since 1990. [34569]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information is as follows:

  Number of UK millionaires

  Thousand

  1995

  80

  1996

  100

  1997

  140

  1998

  1160

  1999

  1180

  1 Provisional

  The figures are based on marketable wealth and include all assets but exclude occupational and state pension rights.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of people in receipt of a means-tested benefit also paid tax in each of the last six years. [20455]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is in the table.

  Proportion of people in receipt of a means-tested benefit who also paid tax

  Year

  Percentage

  1995–96

  31

  1996–97

  32

  1997–98

  28

  1998–99

  28

  1999–2000

  24

  Notes:

  1. These estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors for region, council tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and variability because of non-respondents.

  2. The means tested benefits included in the table are income support, jobseeker's allowance (income based), housing benefit, council tax benefit, family credit (working families tax credit from October 1999), and disability working allowance (disabled persons tax credit from October 1999).

  3. Information is not yet available for 2000–01.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Train Routes (London)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action is being taken to encourage local authorities in partnership with business operators and Transport for London to develop proposals for new train routes. [27706]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for developing proposals for new train routes rests with the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London. Local authorities, business operators and other interests are consulted in that process.

  Bus and Rail Integration
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to allow bus companies to co-ordinate their services to improve integration of bus services with rail services. [28130]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: A number of operators already provide co-ordinated bus services that connect with rail services, and offer through tickets to cover the combined bus and rail journey. This is something that we wish to encourage and I understand from the Office of Fair Trading that there is no reason under competition legislation why a bus operator should not schedule its services so as to co-ordinate with train timings.

  The Government are committed to delivering better integration between different modes of transport in order to ensure long-term improvements for the travelling public. We expect to see further progress towards integration between modes as a result of the increased investment provided under our 10-year plan for transport.

  Central Railway
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the Strategic Rail Authority's conclusions of its high-level review of the Central Railway Company's proposals. [29238]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Strategic Rail Authority's view is currently being considered by Ministers.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the people working on the development of a company limited by guarantee to bid for Railtrack; [30234]

  (2) what professional advisers have been recruited to advise the team developing the company limited by guarantee to bid for Railtrack; and on what terms. [30233]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is funding the bid costs of CLG team and their advisers. These include Ian McAllister, Adrian Montague and Iain Coucher, UBS Warburg, Linklaters and Alliance, Jarvis Rail and Arup. The bid team will draw on other expertise and advice as it deems necessary.
  377W
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on compensation for Railtrack shareholders, indicating how much compensation will be paid and when payment will be made. [34430]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 30 January 2002 to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page),Official Report, columns 320–21W. The timing of any payment would form part of the arrangements for ending administration.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether it is his policy that Railtrack and its successor will have to operate within existing budgets established for Control Period 2. [35797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 861W.

  Plymouth-London Rail Service
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about making a three-hour journey time between Plymouth and London a strategic objective within the 10-year plan. [30710]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan sets out how it will deliver the key rail targets as set out in the Government's 10-year plan. Schemes that will benefit the south-west can be found on the SRA website at www.sra.gov.uk.

  Transport Statistics (Deaths)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the statistics for death for each mode of transport for(a) the EU and (b) this country measured by (i) distance covered and (ii) time spent travelling (A) now, (B) five years ago and (C) 10 years ago. [32073]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. Some information is available on fatality rates per passenger kilometre. Figures for GB are published in the 'Transport Statistics Great Britain' series. Figures for the EU are published in the 'EU Energy and Transport Figures, Statistical Pocketbook' series. However different definitions and methodologies may mean that they are not directly comparable.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 863W, on the Strategic Rail Authority, how much money has been allocated in total; and on what basis it will be allocated and in which financial year. [31536]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to my answers to him on 8 January 2002, Official Report, columns 323–24W and 4 February 2002, Official Report, column 729W.
  378W
  The Strategic Rail Authority has discretion, within its total funding provision, to allocate funds to mitigate commercial risk. The total funds used for that purpose will not be known until individual negotiations on special purpose vehicles are concluded.

  Coastguard Helicopters
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many helicopters are based at each coastguard station south of a line from the Wash to Liverpool Bay; and what the target response times are for coastguard helicopters. [31802]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Declared Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopters are strategically located around the United Kingdom according to coverage requirements; they are not based at coastguard stations although some are based close to them. South of a line from the Wash to Liverpool Bay, SAR helicopters are based at:

  Base

  Hours standby

  Wattisham, Suffolk

  MOD—RAF

  24

  Lee on Solent, Hampshire

  MCA—HMCG

  24

  Portland, Dorset

  MCA—HMCG

  112

  Culdrose, Cornwall

  MOD—RN

  24

  Chivenor, Devon

  MOD—RAF

  24

  Valley, North Wales

  MOD—RAF

  24

  10900–2100 standby

  At each base there is a primary helicopter and crew prepared for emergency response. In addition, at RAF SAR helicopter units, when available, a second aircraft and crew maintains a one-hour standby from 0800 to Evening Civil Twilight or 1800, whichever is the later, but not later than 2200 local time.

  The criteria for SAR helicopter coverage require that a SAR helicopter should take off as quickly and safely as possible, normally within 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes by night, from receiving notification of the incident by the appropriate Rescue Co-ordination Centre. SAR helicopters should be capable of reaching all very high and high risk areas and 75 per cent. of all medium risk areas within the UK Search and Rescue Region within 60 minutes of take-off.

  London Underground
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the meetings he has had in the last 10 months with the Health and Safety Executive to discuss safety on the London underground. [32170]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers and officials meet the Health and Safety Executive on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues including safety on the London underground.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the PPP contracts as drafted will allow lowering of the current standards of disabled access being provided by London Underground Ltd. when carrying out new building and refurbishments. [33784]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The PPP contracts will require the infrastructure companies to comply with all London Underground standards, including for disabled access,
  379W
  when carrying out new building and refurbishments. The PPP will result in real improvements to the accessibility of the Underground.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions why the new draft public-private partnership contracts grant the infrastructure companies the right to challenge London Underground Ltd.'s implementation of its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part 3, access to goods and services. [33783]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground and the Government remain committed to improving accessibility of the Underground and the modernisation plans will result in real improvements. The contracts require the infrastructure companies to comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations and to carry out other works specified by London Underground to improve accessibility. London Underground can also require the companies to carry out additional improvements, which could have significant cost implications.

  The contract therefore provides for London Underground and infrastructure companies to agree on such plans. In the event of disagreement, London Underground can require the work to be done unless the infrastructure company can show that no reasonable person could interpret the requirements of the DDA in the way proposed by London Underground.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on revenue to London Underground of delay in implementing the proposed public-private partnership; and if he will make a statement. [34043]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground does not believe that the timing of the implementation of the public-private partnership has had any effect on revenues.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the written answer of 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 578W, if he will list (a) road schemes included in the first full local transport plans which have an element of private capital, (b) road schemes included in the first annual progress reports which have an element of private capital and (c) roads in the targeted programme of improvements which has an element of private capital. [32911]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None of the schemes in the three categories listed currently has an element of private capital.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many motorway accidents involving heavy goods vehicles there were in each of the last five years; and how many of such accidents involved foreign-owned and operated vehicles. [33268]
  380W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of personal injury motorway accidents involving heavy goods vehicles is as follows.

  Injury road accidents on motorways1 involving HGVs2

  Year

  Number

  1996

  1,796

  1997

  2,000

  1998

  2,109

  1999

  2,342

  2000

  2,416

  1Includes motorway standard A roads

  2Goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes

  Reliable information on the number of accident involving foreign heavy goods vehicles is not available.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the provision of additional tracks between Borough Market Junction and Metropolitan Junction on the channel tunnel route from Charing Cross to Orpington; and what is the(a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works. [32994]

  Mr. Byers
  The Thameslink 2000 project includes the provision of two additional tracks between Borough Market and Metropolitan Junction thus relieving the two track bottleneck over the Borough Market viaduct.

  Railtrack have applied for powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to carry out this project and the inspector's report is currently under consideration. Until I have taken my decision on that application it would be inappropriate for me to comment on likely future start and completion dates.

  However, Railtrack estimate that the project would take about five years to complete.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [33232]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: There is no central register kept of all television purchases. The Department and its agencies have purchased 39 analogue televisions and six digital televisions over the last 24 months.

  There is no central guidance on the purchase of televisions; it is for the purchaser to adhere to central purchasing procedures and achieving best value.

  National Rail Summit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason no National Rail Summit took place in 2001; and when the next National Rail Summit is due to take place. [33926]
  381W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Two summits were held in 1999 and 2000 but there was never any intention to hold them on an annual basis. There are no current plans to hold further National Rail Summits.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  Item

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  1998–99

  Audio visual equipment

  —

  —

  1

  50

  —

  —

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Protective clothing

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  1

  50

  —

  —

  Pager

  —

  —

  1

  50

  —

  —

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  1

  28

  4

  100

  2000–01

  Laptop computer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  25

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  *19

  0

  —

  —

  Pager

  —

  —

  11

  545

  —

  —

  2001–02

  Mobile telephones

  1

  50

  *21

  0

  —

  —

  Audio visual equipment

  —

  —

  1

  35

  —

  —

  Note:

  Items have been valued at cost, current worth or replacement cost depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Recoveries from perpetrators or others, such as insurance claims, have been netted off. For example the losses marked '*' have been replaced by the contractor at no cost to the agency.

  City of York Council
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money the Government have contributed to City of York

  Revenue Grants paid into General Fund Revenue Account (GFRA) and Capital Grants

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Outturn 1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Budget 2001–02

  Revenue Support Grant

  36,598

  38,597

  39,274

  39,478

  36,900

  40,309

  Redistributed Non-domestic Rates

  41,981

  39,451

  41,267

  44,995

  51,078

  50,021

  Specific grants inside AEF

  3,305

  3,128

  4,113

  6,185

  10,977

  13,631

  Revenue Grants paid into GFRA1

  81,884

  81,176

  84,654

  90,658

  98,955

  103,961

  Capital Grants2

  2,461

  1,768

  1,694

  1,881

  2,974

  3,149

  Government contribution

  84,345

  82,944

  86,348

  92,539

  101,929

  107,110

  Increase on previous year (cash terms)

  —

  -1,401

  3,404

  6,191

  9,390

  5,181

  Increase on previous year (real terms)*

  —

  -3,882

  1,056

  4,010

  7,623

  2,569

  * Real terms calculated using the GDP deflator.

  Sources:

  11996–97 to 2000–01 Revenue summary returns. 2001–02 GFRA budget estimates return.

  21996–97 to 2000–01 Capital outturn returns. 2001–02 Capital estimate returns.

  Passenger Rail Travel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the Government's target for growth in passenger rail travel is predicated on a growth in off-peak travel. [34613]
  382W
  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. [34215]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The following information has been extracted from records held centrally.

  council in cash terms in each year since it was created as a unitary authority; and how much the increase was each year in (a) cash and (b) real terms. [34681]

  Dr. Whitehead
  York unitary authority have reported the following Government funding.

  Mr. Jamieson
  The assumptions underpinning the targets in "Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan" are set out in the accompanying document "Transport 2010: The Background Analysis", copies of which are available in the Library and on my Department's website, www.dtlr.gov.uk.

  E-democracy
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local authorities who have undertaken interactive e-democracy projects. [34750]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held centrally. Results of the Best Value Performance Indicator 157 to be published later this year will give an indication of the percentage of council information available online as at 1 April 2002.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the e-Envoy on electronic democracy. [34751]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are working jointly with the Office of the e-Envoy and others to develop policy on e-democracy, including e-voting, and intend to consult on our wide-ranging proposals later this year.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of e-democracy projects undertaken in(a) the UK Parliament, (b) other parliaments and (c) local authorities; and if he will list them. [34748]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department, with the Office of the e-Envoy and others, are developing e-democracy in the United Kingdom. The Government intend to consult on their wide-ranging proposals later this year. In drawing up these proposals, we are considering lessons to be learned from the best examples of e-democracy projects that have taken place in the UK Parliament, other parliaments and in local authorities, which include the following:

  UK Parliament

  The All Party Domestic Violence Group on-line consultation (Womenspeak).

  The Social Security Select Committee inquiry into tax credits.

  Elected representatives websites.

  Other Parliaments

  The Scottish Parliament's on-line petitions and discussion groups.

  The National Assembly for Wales' on-line consultation for ICT strategy.

  The European Parliament—on-line petitions and citizen's mailbox.

  The Aboriginal Canada website.

  Dutch Parliament—e-voting.

  US Presidential elections 2000—remote internet voting. Elected representatives websites.

  Local authorities

  Young Camden website.

  Young Citizen's project—Lewisham.

  Online referenda in Bristol and Croydon and other voting pilots.

  The Kalix Radslag deliberation (Sweden)—on-line consultation and discussion.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with local authorities in respect of e-democracy projects. [34749]
  384W
  Dr. Whitehead
  As we announced to the House on 5 February 2002,Official Report, columns 829–32W, in consultation with the Office of the e-Envoy, the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association, we have approved 30 local authorities to run electoral modernisation pilot schemes in the May 2002 local and mayoral elections. The Electoral Commission will be providing support and advice to pilot authorities throughout the pilot programme.

  My Department liaised closely with those authorities in the consideration of their applications and this process will continue in order to draw up the necessary parliamentary orders which need to be in place by 25 March 2002.

  E-Democracy
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what measure he intends to take to ensure that a gender perspective is taken into account in introducing e-democracy; [34747]

  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that women are consulted in the (a) formulation and (b) content of the Government's e-democrary policy.

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following the creation of the Cabinet Committee on e-democracy, policy proposals on how to strengthen the democratic process through the use of the internet and other electronic means are being developed. The policy proposals will be subject to a wide public consultation later this year, plans for which are currently being prepared.

  Access and diversity issues will be looked at as part of the consultation's examination of inclusion in the democratic process and how e-democracy can help to address these issues. The development of e-democracy will be explored with individuals and groups, including women's groups. Women will be encouraged to respond to the consultation as a whole, and their contributions will be taken into account in the final policy.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which civilian airports in the UK service large aircraft with more than four flights in an hour. [34631]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no standard definition of a large aircraft. Four flights an hour corresponds approximately to 25,000 flights annually. The latest available figures are for the year to end October 2001. Those UK airports at which there were more than 25,000 flights1 in this period are as follows:
  1Includes all civilian scheduled and charter air transport movements (except air taxis) by UK and foreign airlines. Flights such as positioning, training, private, corporate and military are excluded.

  Aberdeen

  Belfast City

  Belfast International

  Birmingham

  Bristol

  East Midlands

  385W

  Edinburgh

  Gatwick

  Glasgow

  Heathrow

  Leeds/Bradford

  Liverpool

  London City

  Luton

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Southampton

  Stansted.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many complaints about aircraft noise his Department received in(a) 2001 and (b) each of the previous four years, broken down by airport or geographical area. [35186]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not held comprehensively in the form requested and to collect it exactly as specified would entail disproportionate cost. Letters from the public (and telephone calls when a written response was provided) about aircraft noise matters generally, excluding responses to consultations and co-ordinated campaigns, were received in each year as follows:

  Airport

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Heathrow

  146

  188

  159

  100

  221

  Gatwick

  16

  17

  15

  15

  11

  Stansted

  87

  102

  70

  243

  53

  Birmingham

  10

  6

  6

  4

  2

  Bournemouth

  6

  21

  6

  8

  3

  Bristol Lulsgate

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  East Midlands

  —

  1

  2

  27

  19

  Edinburgh

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Glasgow

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  3

  4

  —

  —

  5

  London City

  1

  6

  —

  —

  3

  Luton

  5

  16

  32

  16

  4

  Manchester

  3

  2

  2

  2

  9

  Manston

  —

  1

  51

  7

  3

  Oxford

  5

  12

  2

  6

  5

  Plymouth

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Others

  271

  182

  104

  107

  89

  Most of these letters, e-mails and telephone calls were about specific aspects of Government policy, the airport's noise controls, or both. Many complaints about noise matters are, however, dealt with by each individual airport. Some airports regularly publish their own summary statistics of complaints or inquiries.

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives on the welfare considerations to be considered in the application for and enforcement of a possession order by a local authority to evict travellers from unauthorised occupation of public parks and open spaces. [34898]

  Ms Keeble
  Guidance is included in the Good Practice Guide on Managing Unauthorised Camping published in 1998. A copy of the Guidance is available in the Library of the House.

  As the hon. Member will know, my Department in conjunction with the Home Office are currently revising the
  386W
  1998 Guidance. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8 February 2002, Official Report, column 1188W.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings Ministers of his Department have had with members or officials of South Ribble borough council since June 2001. [35012]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I met members and officials from South Ribble borough council on 26 June 2001. Since then, there have been no meetings between DTLR Ministers and officials and members from South Ribble borough council.

  Global Crossing
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what function has been played within the railway industry by Global Crossing; [34939]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) Ernst and Young, (b) the Strategic Rail Authority and (c) the HSE on the potential impact on the railway industry of the collapse of Global Crossing; [34943]

  (3) what effect the collapse of Global Crossing (a) has had and (b) is likely to have upon the rail network; and what steps his Department (i) has taken and (ii) will be taking in response to its collapse; [34942]

  (4) what discussions (a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority have had since 1997 with (i) Railtrack and (ii) the Rail Administrators regarding the work of (A) Racal Telecom and (B) Global Crossing within the railway industry; [34947]

  (5) what steps the (a) SRA, (b) HSE and (c) Railway Administrators (i) have taken and (ii) will be taking in response to the collapse of Global Crossing. [34941]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Global Crossing supplies telecom and associated services to the UK rail industry. I understand that the company have assured their European customers that service provision will be unaffected while it seeks to re-structure its finances in the United States.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) on what dates discussions took place between the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry between May 1997 and December 1999 regarding the sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing; [35000]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) Railtrack, (b) the (Shadow) Strategic Rail Authority,(c) the Health and Safety Executive, (d) Racal Telecom, (e) Global Crossing, (f) the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and (g) the Competition Commission between May 1997 and December 1999 regarding the sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing; [34970]

  (3) on what dates discussions took place between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions between May 1997 and December 1999 regarding the sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing; [34972]
  387W
  (4) on what dates discussions took place between the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and his Department and (a) Railtrack, (b) the (Shadow) Strategic Rail Authority, (c) the Health and Safety Executive, (d) Racal Telecom, (e) Global Crossing and (f) the Competition Commission between May 1997 and December 1999 regarding the sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing; [34971]

  (5) on what dates discussions took place between the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and his Department and (a) Railtrack, (b) the (Shadow) Strategic Rail Authority,(c) the Health and Safety Executive, (d) Racal Telecom and (e) Global Crossing between May 1997 and December 1999 regarding the sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing; [35002]

  (6) what representations were received from (a) Railtrack, (b) the (Shadow) Strategic Rail Authority,(c) the Health and Safety Executive, (d) Racal Telecom, (e) Global Crossing and (f) the Department of Trade and Industry between May 1997 and December 1999 regarding the sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing; [35001]

  (7) what assessment was made by his Department of the impact of the sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing in November 1999 on its delivery of functions related to the railway, with specific reference to (a) economic aspects and (b) safety critical functions. [34937]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The sale of Racal Telecom to Global Crossing was a commercial matter for the two private companies concerned, not my Department.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will outline the safety critical functions within the railway industry for which Global Crossing has had responsibility; [34969]

  (2) what (a) safety warnings, (b) enforcement notices and (c) prosecutions have been placed upon Global Crossing (formerly Racal Telecom) by the Health and Safety Executive regarding safety offences related to the railways between (i) May 1997 and October 1999 and (ii) November 1999 and January 2002; [34946]

  (3) what timetable for safety work on the railways has been agreed between Racal Telecom and (a) Railtrack,(b) the HSE and (c) his Department since December 1995; [34945]

  (4) if he will list the requirements contained in the contract Global Crossing has had with Railtrack with regard to (a) its safety function, (b) a timetable for the improvement of safety critical functions and (c) other functions related to the running of the railway network; [34968]

  (5) what the timetable is for the implementation of safety critical improvements agreed by Racal Telecom since December 1995; and what progress has been made towards these targets. [34940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Racal Telecom (now Global Crossing) have a contractual arrangement with Railtrack, which is a commercial matter between the companies. There are no agreements between Racal Telecom/Global Crossing and either the Health and Safety. Executive (HSE) or my Department. Global Crossing supplies telecom and 388W
  associated services to the British rail industry. Railtrack as infrastructure manager retains overall responsibility for safety. HSE advise that there have been no prosecutions against Racal Telecom or Global Crossing since 1 April 1999, or enforcement notices since 1 April 2001. HSE data from before this date are not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Railway Assets
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been undertaken by his Department of the valuation of railway assets within British Rail Telecommunications plc sold by the Government to Racal Telecom in December 1995. [34944]

  Mr. Jamieson
  British Rail Telecommunications Ltd. was sold by the British Railways Board for £132.75 million. My Department has made no such assessment since the sale.

  Staff Retention
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff left the service of his Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60; and in respect of how many his Department and agencies assume responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [34787]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The number of staff who left the service of this Department in the year ended 31 March 2001 is 318: 277 left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60: and DTLR (C) have assumed responsibility for making payments until retirement age (60) for nine ex-members of staff, who left during the financial year 2000–01.

  Parallel information on the Department's executive agencies is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to ring-fence the funding for the Housing Corporation's rural programme. [35058]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no plans to do so. We have doubled the target for the number of dwellings which the Housing Corporation's rural programme will deliver in small rural settlements (those with a population of 3,000 or less), from 800 approvals in 2000–01 to 1,600 a year by 2003–04.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional funding he intends to provide to support the building of affordable housing on brownfield sites(a) in England and (b) in rural areas. [35057]

  Ms Keeble
  We are increasing investment in affordable housing in England through the Housing Corporation to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04, almost double the level in 2000–01. The Corporation has a target to deliver 65 per cent. of this housing in regeneration areas.
  389W
  Any additional funding to support the building of affordable housing in England will be considered as part of the Spending Review 2002.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [35934]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of alleged cases identified as work related stress over the last three years in my Department are:

  Number

  1998–99

  13

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  39

  There have been two cases, which were the subject of a stress-related claim against the Department; both are now closed, as the cases were unproven. No compensation has been paid to date for claims of work related stress. The Department does not have details of the days lost and associated cost for work related stress absence.

  The Department has a Stress at Work policy in place, which is supported by practical guidance issued to all staff on dealing with the issue. DTLR is committed to meeting the targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to work related injuries and ill health arising from the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  The reply does not include the Department's agencies.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people are employed in his Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35351]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of the effect of the Working Time Directive on his Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps he is taking to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement. [35882]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are currently 33 members of DTLR (C) staff (out of 3,532 as at 1 January 2002) who have signed agreements to disapply the 48 hour per week working hours limit.

  Officials are currently involved in assessing the effect of the Working Time Regulations on my Department's staff. In addition, my Department is carrying out a staff survey, part of which focuses on work loads/stress etc. The results from these two surveys will inform the discussion on any action that may be appropriate.

  The reply does not include the Department's agencies.

  Cyclists (Safety)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the requirements for cyclists to(a) use lights after dark and (b) wear cycling helmets. [35295]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 require any pedal cycle used on the roads between sunset and sunrise to have a front lamp, a rear lamp and a red rear reflector. The lamps must be lit and unobscured. There is no legal requirement for cyclists to wear a cycle helmet. However the Highway Code advises cyclists wear a cycle helmet.

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the commitment required by members of passenger transport authorities in terms of frequency of attendance and hours. [35312]

  Ms Keeble
  It is up to Passenger Transport Authority members to determine the frequency of their meetings and the consequent time commitment required.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on recommended methods of selection of local councillors to sit on Passenger Transport Authorities. [35311]

  Ms Keeble
  Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs) are composed of councillors from districts within the PTA area. The members of each council nominate representatives from among their number.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Passenger Transport Authorities' performance in consulting passengers and their representatives about their plans. [35313]

  Ms Keeble
  Passenger Transport Authorities are required by the Transport Act 2000 to prepare, in conjunction with the relevant Metropolitan district councils, a joint local transport plan (LTP) for their area.

  Our guidance to authorities on LTPs makes clear the importance of participation with both the local community and key stakeholders in the development of the objectives and strategies for the LTP. Our guidance on LTP Annual Progress Reports (APRs) also refers to the need for on-going consultation during the implementation of the LTP. Evidence of authorities' efforts in this respect forms part of our consideration of the overall quality of LTPs and APRs.

  Railway Industry (State Aid)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he has received a response from the European Commission on the Railtrack State Aid application; and if he will make a statement. [35799]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission announced on 13 February that State Aid clearance has been given for Government to make loans or to guarantee commercial loans made to Railtrack plc in administration.
  391W
  The Government intend to notify Railtrack plc that it should use reasonable endeavours to secure commercial banking facilities, guaranteed by the Secretary of State, to refinance the outstanding advances made under the loan facility, together with interest, thereby removing the direct call on taxpayers' money.

  Departmental Resources and Initiatives (Surrey)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the financial resources and initiatives sponsored by his Department in the last 12 months for Surrey which are additional to Government SSA grants. [35804]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Government Grant Support to Surrey county council for Revenue Expenditure in addition to General Grants distributed by formula in 2001–02 consists of:

  £

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  779,797

  Rural Bus Challenge

  150,000

  Supporting People Implementation Grant

  354,881

  HGV Accidents
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road traffic accidents in England and Wales involved a heavy goods vehicle in each year since 1995. [35617]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of injury accidents in England and Wales involving goods vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes maximum permissible gross vehicle weight is shown as follows:

  Number

  1995

  11,714

  1996

  11,684

  1997

  12,333

  1998

  12,484

  1999

  13,053

  2000

  13,046

  Figures for 2001 are not yet available and no information is available regarding damage only accidents involving heavy goods vehicles.

  Hospitality Events
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list those functions, engagements and events which he, his Ministers, officials and advisers have attended which have been wholly or partly sponsored, funded, and promoted by the British Airports Authority since 1997; [35657]

  (2) if he will list those functions, engagements and events which Ministers, his officials and advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35699]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Archaeological Services
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the level of expenditure on archaeological services by local authorities in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–0101. [35664]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Ports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect the proposed Directive on Market Access to Port Services would have upon the monopoly that UK port owners hold upon pilotage in their ports. [35869]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our aim in relation to pilotage provisions in the proposed Directive is to preserve the integrated approach to safety management promoted by the Port Marine Safety Code. There is nothing in the proposed text that is inconsistent with the Code or the present regulatory functions of competent harbour authorities under the Pilotage Act 1987.

  Under the Commission's proposals these authorities may in certain circumstances be required to include a tendering process in deciding what contractual arrangements are appropriate for the provision of the pilotage service. Pilots' organisations have told us that they oppose introducing the principle of competition into pilotage, and they support the European Parliament's proposal to exclude pilotage from the Directive.

  Park Homes
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to improve conditions for park home owners. [35553]

  Ms Keeble
  Proposals for legislation to amend the control regime for park homes 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.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the National Park Homes Campaign Group. [35554]

  Ms Keeble
  We have had no discussions with the National Park Homes Campaign Group.

  Regeneration
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce a scheme to accredit the skills of the community involved in regeneration projects. [35552]
  393W
  Ms Keeble
  We are committed to ensuring that the skills of community residents involved in neighbourhood renewal work are accredited and recognised. The Learning and Development Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, to be published in spring 2002, will consider how best to achieve this as part of its work to ensure that everyone involved in neighbourhood renewal has the skills, knowledge and support they need to help them succeed.

  Teenagers
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has held with local authorities with regard to improving facilities for teenagers. [35618]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Regarding English local authorities, Ministers and officials in DTLR and other Departments have frequent discussions with local authorities about the provision of services to their residents, including teenagers and other children.

  Community Strategies
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason he has made it a statutory duty for county councils to prepare community strategies. [35425]

  Ms Keeble
  The duty in section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 was introduced to confer on all principal councils (including county councils, district councils and unitary authorities) the statutory authority to develop strategies which promote or improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. This measure forms part of the Government's wider initiative to modernise local government.

  Local Planning
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of removing the link between county councils and land use planning and(a) public service agreements, (b) local transport plans, (c) education development plans, (d) social services plans, (e) library plans, (f) waste management strategies and (g) community safety. [35429]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government do not propose to remove the link between county councils and land use planning. Partly because of the functions referred to by the hon. Member, the Planning Green Paper seeks views on the role that county councils can continue to play in the preparation of planning strategies at the regional and sub-regional level, and in assisting district councils with the preparation of Local Development Frameworks.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many tiers there are in the planning system and how many are proposed in the Green Paper. [35427]

  Ms Keeble
  Planning Guidance is produced at the national and regional level. In two-tier local authority areas plans are prepared at county level (structure plans) and by district authorities (local plans). In single-tier 394W
  areas unitary authorities either produce a plan which incorporates both county and district plan functions (unitary development plans) or prepare a joint structure plan and a local plan.

  Under our proposals set out in the Green Paper "Planning: delivering a fundamental change", we propose to simplify the existing arrangements by abolishing the structure plan tier of plans. They will be replaced, together with unitary development and local plans, by a new single level of plan called a Local Development Framework to be prepared by district and unitary authorities.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on how the Green Paper's proposals on planning will improve integration with other strategies and plans. [35428]

  Ms Keeble
  The Green Paper "Planning: delivering a fundamental change" sets out proposals for better integrated and more effective planning at both strategic and local levels. The new statutory Regional Spatial Strategy will take full account of the spatial planning aspects of other relevant regional strategies and provide the longer term planning framework for Regional Development Agencies and other regional stakeholders.

  At the local level local authorities are already required to produce community strategies to provide an integrated approach to the improvement of the economic, social and environmental well being of their areas.

  The core policies of the proposed Local Development Framework will help deliver the land use and development aspects of the Community Strategy, with action plans integrated with other initiatives, such as those for regeneration and neighbourhood renewal.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) for what reason the Green Paper on planning proposes county councils have no statutory role in planning; and what role county councils will have in promoting sustainable development; [35426]

  (2) for what reason the Planning Green Paper states that boundary overlaps make county level planning no longer appropriate. [35430]

  Ms Keeble
  The Green Paper recognises the continuing need for strategic planning at regional level and for local planning to be undertaken as close to local communities as possible. It proposes abolition of structure plans but invites comments on whether the counties should have a role in assisting the regional, district and unitary authorities in preparing their plans (para 4.37). We propose that mineral and waste planning should continue to be a county function. In addition, county councils will continue to have responsibilities for other functions which bear upon sustainability such as countryside management and the preparation of local transport plans.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason he proposes to end the county councils' role in the development system. [35592]
  395W
  Ms Keeble
  The Government do not propose to end the county councils' role in the development planning system. We are seeking views on the future planning role of the county councils in addition to their continuing responsibility for minerals and waste planning.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what reasons underlie his proposal to remove from the statutory consultees for planning decisions groups concerned with environmental protection or local interest which do not have a role in health and safety; and by what means he will ensure that the views of local people are taken into account in planning decisions. [35431]

  Ms Keeble
  We are concerned that the present arrangements for consulting expert bodies on planning and other cases are not working as effectively as they might. The distinction between statutory and non-statutory consultees has become blurred and consultation can often be a source of delay. One option proposed in our consultation paper "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change" is to clarify the basis of determining whether bodies should be statutory consultees and reduce their number. Decisions about which bodies might in future be statutory consultees will be made in the light of the consultation. The consultation paper also contains a number of proposals to promote better engagement of local communities in shaping the future development of their areas.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action has been taken to identify where the delays in the planning process are; and if he will publish a list of(a) the average time taken to decide on planning applications by district, unitary and county councils and (b) the average time taken for Ministers to decide on call in decisions in the last 12 months. [35432]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government have reviewed the planning system and published a Green Paper "Planning: delivering a fundamental change" which sets out a range of measures and proposals to deliver a faster, simpler, more accessible planning system for business and local communities.

  The average time for local authorities to decide planning applications in 2000–01 was 11.7 weeks. Detailed information for each local authority is published in "The Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators Actual Outturn Data 2000–01".

  Performance on the issuing of called-in applications is measured as the proportion decided within 13 and 20 weeks of receiving the Inspector's Report. In 2001–02, 61 per cent. of called-in planning applications were decided in 13 weeks and 73 per cent. were decided in 20 weeks.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 913W, on fair trade goods, if he will review and increase the amount of fairly traded goods purchased by her Department during Fair Trade Fortnight. [35921]
  396W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department's procurement policy is about the achievement of value for money. The Department does not have a specific policy requiring the purchase of Fair Trade goods. Purchasing Officers are expected to consider each case on its merits with particular regard to the need for any products purchased to represent value for money.

  The Department supports the sale of Fair Trade products including tea and coffee and confectionery including chocolate and cereal bars, which have been introduced in the staff restaurants. Declarations have been obtained from the contractor that the products sold are Fair Trade.

  Opencast Mining
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase protection for communities adversely affected by opencast mining. [35637]

  Ms Keeble
  Planning policies for Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Revised and strengthened policy for coal mining in England, including opencast working, was published in March 1999 in Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3. This sets out a policy presumption against the development of coal extraction sites. However, such development can be permitted if the proposal is environmentally acceptable or can be made so through the use of planning conditions or obligations, or, where this is not the case, where there are local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts. This is the means by which any possible adverse effects on communities from opencast mining proposals should be tested, and suitable mitigation measures applied in those cases where, with such action, the development could be made acceptable. In accordance with general planning policies, such measures, in the form of planning conditions or obligations, should be necessary, precise, relevant to planning, enforceable, directly relevant both to the development proposed and the avoidance of the adverse effects they are intended to prevent or reduce, and reasonable in all other respects. The Government consider that, within the normal operation of the planning system, these are matters best assessed by the local communities and local authorities who know the area best, and are most directly affected.

  We have no plans to change this policy framework.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the names of staff who have been seconded to his 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 his Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35829]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The table sets out details of secondments from the private sector into DTLR since its inception in June 2001. I am unable to provide the names of staff seconded to this Department without their written consent.
  397W

  Secondments into DTLR since June 2001

  Identity

  (a) Parent organisation

  (b) Responsibilities and civil service grades

  (c) Organisation responsible for paying salary

  (d) Start and end dates of secondment

  1.

  ADFC Ltd.

  G7—Local Government

  ADFC Ltd.

  3 September 2001 to date

  2.

  Home Group Ltd.

  SEO—Urban Policy

  Home Group Ltd.

  4 February 2002 to date

  3..

  Accord plc

  G7—Local Government

  Accord plc

  3 September 2001 to date

  4.

  SERCO Ltd.

  G7—Local Government

  SERCO Ltd.

  11 June 2001 to date

  5.

  Savage Crangle Partners

  AA—Local Government

  Savage Crangle Partners

  19 October 2001 to date

  6.

  BT

  G7—Neighbourhood Renewal

  BT

  24 September 2001 to date

  7.

  PricewaterhouseCooper

  G7—Local Government

  PricewaterhouseCooper

  3 September 2001 to date

  8.

  Babtie Group

  G7—Local Government

  Babtie Group

  3 September 2001 to date

  9.

  PEP Ltd.

  G7—Neighbourhood Renewal

  PEP Ltd.

  18 June 2001 to date

  Metropolitan and East London Lines
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which(a) Metropolitan line and (b) East London line stations will be refurbished (i) between 2002 and 2005 and (ii) between 2006 and 2007 and (iii) from 2008; and when it is estimated that the final one will be completed. [35828]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 February 20021]London Transport's plans for modernisation of the tube are designed to deliver a comprehensive upgrade of the whole network as quickly and efficiently as possible. London Transport is currently consulting the Mayor and Transport for London on the plans following its announcement on 7 February that it is minded to proceed. I expect London Transport to publish detailed information on the station refurbishment programme following that consultation.

  Structure Plan (Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether there is a structure plan for Lincolnshire; and what the status is of the draft Lincolnshire structure plan. [34974]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Lincolnshire structure plan was approved in 1981. Policies on population, housing, settlement, employment and shopping have been amended and the plan period extended to 2000 through Structure Plan Alterations Nos. 1 and 2 in 1991 and 1994.

  Lincolnshire county council published a revised Deposit structure plan in January 1998 and progressed through to the adoption phase in December 2000. However, the Secretary of State directed the county council not to adopt the structure plan until he had decided how to proceed following the council's refusal to comply with his direction to modify Policy 4 on Accessibility to include reference to reducing the need to travel in particular by private car to bring the policy into line with national planning policy in PPG13 Transport.

  The Secretary of State is currently considering whether to withdraw the direction to modify and allow the council to adopt the structure plan. In the interim the uncontested policies and proposals in the emerging structure plan have considerable weight in the consideration of planning matters in the county.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when 398W
  he intends to provide an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 15 October 2001, Ref 7191; [35521]

  (2) when he intends to provide an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 15 October 2001, Ref 7190. [35522]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The questions were not answered because they were withdrawn by the hon. Member on 4 October.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to change the Departmental Expenditure Limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36526]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2001–02 will change as follows.(a) the DTLR Main Programmes DEL will be increased by £103,081,000 from £12,121,782,000 to £12,224,863,000 and the DTLR administration costs limit will be increased by £3,037,000 from £715,335,000 to £718,372,000 and the DTLR HSE administration costs limit will be increased by £1,000,000 from £196,232,000 to £197,232,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  168,983

  New DEL

  4,913,833

  Capital

  Change

  -65,902

  New DEL

  7,311,030

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) The changes for Request for Resources 1 are as follows:

  Take up of End Year Flexibility of £44,812,000 comprising £30,751,000 for Regional Development Agencies and £14,061,000 for the London Development Agency. An increase of £2,479,000 from Request for Resources 4 comprising £1,385,000 for Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency administration costs (partly offset by receipts shortfall of £705,000); £244,000

  399W
  for the Rent Service administration costs; and £850,000 for fire prevention publicity. A net decrease of £81,111,000 resulting from the following inter-departmental transfers: £30,000 from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for seabed vehicle; £189,000 for Ordnance Survey from Invest to Save budget; £13,000 from the Scottish Executive to Neighbourhood Renewal Unit; net transfer of £79,000,000 to Department of Health consisting of a transfer for bedblocking (£80,000,000) partially offset by transfer for rough sleepers (£1,000,000); £1,781,000 to Department for Work and Pensions for benefit agency staff (£1,631,000) and for work carried out on "section 30" grant (£150,000); net transfer of £372,000 to Lord Chancellor's Department; £95,000 to Home Office for joint funded special grants programme project; and £95,000 to Department for Education and Skills for resident consultancy project. A transfer of £17,704,000 to the capital element of the DTLR DEL.

  (ii) The changes for Request for Resources 2 are as follows:

  Take up of End Year Flexibility of £49,400,000 comprising £19,400,000 for National Air Traffic Services PPP consultancy costs; £15,000,000 for financial assistance to airlines for losses arising from the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA; and £15,000,000 for payments to administrators of Railtrack plc (in administration). Transfer of £9,994,000 from Request for Resources 4 comprising £1,567,000 to Maritime and Coastguard Agency for administration costs (£127,000), additional pension costs (£440,000) and emergency towing vessels (£1,000,000); £2,653,000 to Highways Agency for administration costs; and £5,774,000 to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for administration costs. A net increase of £12,455,000 resulting from the following inter-departmental transfers: a transfer of £16,800,000 from the Scottish Executive to reflect part of the effect on ScotRail of the Rail Regulator's Review of Access Charges (£12,800,000), and to reflect the operation of the ScotRail performance regime (£4,000,000); £333,000 for Civil Service Reform; £25,000 from Northern Ireland Office (Department of the Environment) to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; £3,435,000 to Ministry of Defence to refund Royal Flight contribution; £800,000 to Department for Education and Skills for training costs; and a net transfer of £468,000 to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consisting of research (£413,000), the site specific advice programme (£147,000) partially offset by transfers for fishing vessels (£92,000). A net transfer of £10,910,000 from non-voted provision for financial assistance to airlines for losses arising from the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA (£10,000,000); Maritime and Coastguard Agency emergency towing vessels (£1,000,000), partially offset by transfer of £90,000 receipts to non-voted provision. A transfer of £17,441,000 from the capital element of the DTLR DEL.

  (iii) The changes for Request for Resources 4 are as follows:

  Take up of End Year Flexibility of £1,000,000 for Health and Safety Executive administration costs. Transfer of £2,479,000 to Request for Resources 1 in respect of Rent Service Executive Agency administration costs (£244,000); Planning Inspectorate Agency administration costs (£1,385,000); and Fire Services (£850,000). Transfer
  400W
  of £9,994,000 to Request for Resources 2 in respect of Maritime and Coastguard Agency administration costs (£567,000); Highways Agency administration costs (£2,653,000); Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency administration costs (£,774,000); and to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for towing vessels (£1,000,000). A decrease of £7,189,000 resulting from the following inter-departmental transfers: Machinery of Government transfers to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (£6,294,000); to Office for National Statistics for neighbourhood statistics (£585,000); and to Cabinet Office for Government Office for London (£300,000) and recruitment of fast streamers (£10,000). Transfer of £5,900,000 from non-voted provision for Health and Safety Executive.

  (iv) Provision within the non-Voted resource element of the DTLR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £133,774,000. This reflects a technical reclassification of the Commission for New Towns and Urban Regeneration Agency as non-departmental public bodies (£162,711,000 and £81,600,000); partially offset by transfers to Department of Work and Pensions from Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (£57,796,000); and machinery of government changes transfers to Department for Trade and Industry (£40,200,000) and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (£5,641,000). £6,900,000 non-voted provision will be transferred to Request for Resources 2 (£1,000,000) and Request for Resources 4 (£5,900,000)

  (v) As a result of the changes to Requests for Resources 1, 2 and 4 the DTLR administration provision has been increased by £4,782,000 from £957,147,000 to £961,929,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (vi) The changes for Request for Resources 1 are as follows:

  Take up of End Year Flexibility of £54,112,000 comprising Regional Development Agencies (£23,176,000) and London Development Agency (£30,936,000). A transfer of £30,000,000 to Request for Resources 2 for a loan to the Highways Agency; a transfer of £519,000 from Request for Resources 4 for the Rent Service Executive Agency (£362,000) and the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency (£157,000). A net increase of £4,813,000 resulting from the following inter-departmental transfers: £2,500,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for choice based lettings; from Department of Trade and Industry to Regional Development Agencies for land and property (£1,506,000); from Capital Modernisation Fund to Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency (£702,000); from Invest to Save Budget for Ordnance Survey (£15,000); and from Department for Work and Pensions to the Rent Service Executive Agency (£90,000). A transfer from resource provision of £17,704,000.

  (vii) The changes for Request for Resources 2 are as follows:

  Take up of End Year Flexibility of £1,000,000 for Transport Direct. A transfer of £30,000,000 from Request for Resources 1 for a loan to the Highways Agency. A transfer of £4,181,000 from Request for Resources 4 to Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency for electronic
  401W
  service delivery. An increase of £12,821,000 resulting from the following inter-departmental transfers: from Capital Modernisation Fund to Driving Standards Agency for hand held computers (£2,800,000); from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (£345,000); and from Scottish Executive a net transfer of £9,676,000 for Rosyth/Zeebrugge water freight grant (£10,969,000) partly offset by transfer for freight facilities grant (£1,293,000). Transfer from non-voted provision of £44,000,000 in respect of loan to Highways Agency (£39,000,000) and the Doncaster North bridge project (£5,000,000). Transfer to resource provision of £17,441,000.

  (viii) The changes for Request for Resources 4 are as follows:

  A machinery of government transfer of £487,000 to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A transfer of £519,000 to Request for Resources 1 for the Rent Service Executive Agency (£362,000) and the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency (£157,000). A transfer of £4,181,000 to Request for Resources 2 for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. An additional receipt of £1,000,000 for sale of land at Mandela Road.

  (ix) Provision within the non-Voted capital element of the DTLR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be decreased by £181,424,000. This reflects a technical reclassification of the Commission for New Towns and Urban regeneration Agency as non-departmental public bodies (£93,757,000 and £17,557,000); machinery of government change transfer to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (£16,200,000); net transfers to Request for Resources 2 of £53,910,000 including £9,910,000 transferred to resource.

  (b) the DTLR Local Government DEL will be increased by £1,100,000 from £37,040,189,000 to £37,041,289,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  +1,100

  New DEL

  36,951,370

  Capital

  Change

  —

  New DEL

  89,919

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a machinery of government change transfer of £1,100,000 from the Home Office.

  Mesothelioma (Compensation)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he will take to help sufferers from mesothelioma who, as a result of the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Fairchild case, are unable to obtain compensation from their former employers through the courts. [36527]

  Mr. Byers
  The compensation scheme administered by the Department under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 will be used to make payments 402W
  to qualifying sufferers from mesothelioma who are affected by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Fairchild case.

  This is a terrible disease and it would be wrong for employees, former employees and their families to be left without help as a result of this court judgment. As an interim measure, I am extending the compensation scheme my Department operates for sufferers of respiratory industrial diseases to cover qualifying employees. I am discussing with colleagues in government what further action might be taken in the longer term in response to the Fairchild judgment.

  Electoral Modernisation
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions further to his announcement on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 829W, on local authorities who have been approved to run electoral modernisation pilot schemes in the May 2002 local elections, what other authorities have been approved to run schemes; and if he will make a statement. [36971]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am pleased to announce that Middlesbrough council will join the 13 other local authorities to pilot an all postal ballot at local and mayoral elections this May.

  I announced the other successful pilots for the May 2002 local elections on 5 February, when I gave the go-ahead for 30 councils to pilot new ways of voting and counting. These included testing early voting, all postal ballots and mobile ballot kiosks. Over half will explore innovative ways in which people can vote electronically including via the internet.

  The pilot programme aims to build on the successes of earlier pilots—in the 2000 local elections—and explore other techniques to make the voting process simpler, accessible and more efficient for the electorate. We are particularly keen to engage younger voters and feel the new innovations will help.

  In addition I have agreed that Kerrier district council who is due to hold a by-election for a casual vacancy can pilot an all postal ballot on that occasion.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many copies of the 1992 National Audit Office report about the Al-Yamamah arms agreement were produced. [35029]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  10 copies of the 1992 National Audit Office report on the Saudi Arabian Airforce Project—known as project Al-Yamamah—were produced.

  The report looked at the use of taxpayers' money by the Ministry of Defence in relation to the project. It referred to confidential arrangements between the governments of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. The report was not published because publication would have breached that pledge of confidentiality.
  403W
  The then PAC chairman (now Lord Sheldon) was quoted as saying after he and the then senior Conservative member of the PAC had considered the report in private in February 1992:
  "I did an investigation and I find no evidence that the [MOD] made improper payments. I have found no evidence of fraud or corruption. The deal … complied with Treasury Approval and the rules of government accounting."

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [33244]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 58W.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans there are to change the Cabinet Office departmental expenditure limit and the administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36855]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the spring supplementary estimate the Cabinet Office DEL (resources and capital) will be increased by £54,599,000 from £348,264,000 to £402,863,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased from £246,753,000 to £267,704,000.

  Within the DEL change the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  50,647

  New DEL

  315,096

  of which:

  Voted

  306,349

  Non-voted

  8,747

  Capital

  Change

  3,952

  New DEL

  87,767

  of which:

  Voted

  87,767

  Non-voted

  —

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from transfers from other Departments for Machinery of Government changes and other arrangements, additional provision for key priorities and improving public services and for improving security and communications systems following the events of 11 September. The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from transfers from other Departments for Machinery of Government changes and other arrangements and a reallocation from resource to capital.
  404W
  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers or charged to the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Lost/stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy 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. [34220]

  Mr. Leslie
  Two items with a value equal to or less than £50 were reported stolen or lost within the last four financial years. Both incidents occurred in 1997–98.

  Corresponding figures for the 2001–02 financial year have yet to be collated.

  Kitchen equipment: £20

  Foreign currency: £50.

  Charity Law Reform Advisory Group
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Charity Law Reform Advisory Group is due to publish its conclusions. [35334]

  Mrs. Roche
  his is not a matter for the Government. The Charity Law Reform Advisory Group, was set up by NCVO—National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The conclusions for the group were published as a consultation document "For the public benefit?" in January 2001. Their consultation period ended on 31 July 2001.

  Government Office for the West Midlands
  David Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are directly employed by the Government office for the west midlands; and how many equivalent full-time posts this represents. [34807]

  Mrs. Roche
  263 people are directly employed by the Government office for the west midlands. This represents 250 full-time equivalent posts.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the effect of the working time directive on the his Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps he is taking to reduce this number; and if the will take a statement. [35885]

  Mr. Leslie
  The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Cabinet Office and its agencies are within the limits set by the working time regulations. Those employees whose duties require them to work in excess of 48 hours on a regular basis are asked to sign an opt-out agreement. 170 members of staff have signed such an agreement.

  Persistent working in excess of 48 hours per week is discouraged. My Department is committed to reducing the number of employees who are required to work long hours (by adjusting working hours or re-designing jobs) to an absolute minimum commensurate with meeting their operational needs. Work/life balance policies are in place to give managers greater flexibility in reducing the number of excess hours worked.

  E-democracy Projects
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list local authorities which have undertaken interactive e-democracy projects. [32222]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), on 13 February 2002.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of senior civil servants have

  Civil service

  Other public sector

  Private sector

  Total

  Year

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1996–97

  32

  33.3

  37

  38.5

  27

  28.1

  96

  100.00

  1997–98

  27

  32.5

  36

  43.4

  20

  24.1

  83

  100.00

  1998–99

  32

  29.9

  44

  41.1

  31

  29.0

  107

  100.00

  1999–2000

  55

  34.8

  59

  37.3

  44

  27.8

  158

  100.00

  2000–01

  77

  38.1

  98

  48.5

  27

  13.4

  202

  100.00

  The proportion of senior civil servants working in Government Offices for the Regions posts at 1 April 2001 was around 1.6 per cent.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Bodies (Chairmen)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the appointments made by her Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of

  Body

  Name

  Term of appointment

  Remuneration (£)

  Chairs of non-departmental public bodies

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  John Tusa

  3 September 1999 to 2 September 2003

  0

  Advisory Council on Libraries

  John Hicks

  1 January 1999 to 31 December 2002

  0

  Arts Council of England

  Gerry Robinson

  1 May 1998 to 31 January 2001 and

  0

  1 February 2001 to 31 January 2004

  British Film Institute

  Sir Alan Parker CBE

  1 January 1998 to 3 August 1999

  0

  British Film Institute1

  Joan Bakewell

  4 August 1999 to 30 September 2002

  0

  British Library

  Lord Eatwell

  1 September 2001 to 31 August 2006

  32,010

  British Tourist Authority

  David Quarmby

  1 June 1999 to 31 May 2003

  41,930

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Lord Holme

  1 October 1999 to 22 October 2001

  50,990

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Lord Dubs

  1 February 2001 to 31 January 2004

  50,990

  Commission for Architecture and the Built Heritage

  Sir Stuart Lipton

  20 August 1999 to 19 August 2002

  30,000 (not taken)

  The Community Fund

  Lady Brittan CBE

  10 May 1999 to 9 May 2002

  25,000

  Culture South West

  Adrian Vinken

  29 September 1999 to 28 September 2002

  0

  East of England Regional Cultural Consortium

  Graham Creelman

  28 September 1999 to 27 September 2002

  0

  East Midlands Regional Cultural Consortium

  Venu Dhupa

  6 October 1999 to 5 October 2002

  0

  English Heritage

  Sir Neil Cossons

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2005

  54,000

  English Tourism Council

  Alan Britten

  12 July 1999 to 11 July 2002

  37,440

  Film Council

  Sir Alan Parker CBE

  30 July 1999 to 29 July 2002

  0

  Football Licensing Authority

  Clive Sherling

  28 August 1999 to 31 March 2001 and 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2003

  13,105 (up to April 2001. Nil thereafter)

  Gaming Board for Great Britain2

  Peter Dean CBE

  1 July 2001 to 30 June 2006

  41,020

  Geffrye Museum

  Richard Hunting

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002

  0

  Horniman Museum

  Donald Kirkham CBE

  23 September 1999 to 22 September 2003

  0

  Horserace Betting Levy Board2

  Robert Hughes CBE

  1 September 2001 to 31 August 2004

  48,250

  Horserace Totalisator2

  Peter Jones

  1 August 2000 to 31 July 2003

  83,553

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  John Lee

  21 October 1998 to 20 October 2001

  0

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Professor Laurie Wood

  21 October 2001 to 20 October 2004

  0

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  David McDonnell

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2005

  0

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Lord Puttnam CBE

  9 July 1998 to 8 July 2001 and 9 July 2001 to 8 July 2004

  22,660

  National Lottery Commission3

  Brian Pomeroy

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  33,026

  National Lottery Commission3

  Dame Helena Shovelton

  1 April 2000 to 4 October 2000

  33,026

  National Lottery Commission3

  Lord Burns

  5 October 2000 to 4 October 2001

  33,026

  National Lottery Commission3

  Harriet Spicer

  5 October 2001 to 4 October 03

  33,026

  406W
  previously been employed (a) in the private sector, (b) in local government administration and (c) in Government Offices for the Regions. [32906]

  Mr. Leslie
  Comprehensive information is not held centrally on what proportion of senior civil servants have previously been employed in(a) the private sector, (b) local government administration and (c) Government Offices for the Regions.

  The table shows the number and proportion of people recruited through open competition to the senior civil service, by their previous employment sector, for the last five years.

  (a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) taskforces; and if she will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33895]

  Tessa Jowell
  The information follows, but does not include details on appointments to bodies sponsored by my Department where my role is to advise on appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or, through him, by Her Majesty the Queen. My Department also does not collect details on political affiliation.
  407W

  Body

  Name

  Term of appointment

  Remuneration (£)

  New Opportunities Fund

  Baroness Pitkeathley OBE

  3 July 1998 to 2 January 2002 and 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005

  24,133

  North East Regional Cultural Consortium

  George Gill

  29 September to 26 September 2002

  0

  North West Regional Cultural Consortium

  Felicity Goodey CBE

  28 September 1999 to 27 September 2002

  0

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Michael Holroyd CBE

  7 August 1997 to 6 August 2000

  0

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Clare Francis

  7 August 2000 to 6 August 2003

  0

  Public Lending Right Registrar

  Dr. James Parker

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2006

  48,706

  QUEST

  Keith Oates

  1 July 1999 to 22 March 2000

  0

  QUEST

  Sheila Forbes

  1 November 2000 to 31 October 2003

  0

  Resource

  Lord Evans CBE

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2003

  31,800

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Sir John Guinness CB

  1 December 1998 to 30 November 2001 and 1 December 2001 to 30 November 2003

  0

  South East Regional Cultural Consortium

  Professor Sir David Watson

  28 September 1999 to 27 September 2002

  0

  Spoliation Advisory Panel

  Sir David Hirst

  13 April 2000 to 12 April 2004

  5,631

  Sport England

  Trevor Brooking CBE

  7 July 1998 to 11 April 1999 and 12 April 1999 to 11 October 2002

  25,205

  Theatres Trust

  Sir John Drummond CBE

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 2001 and 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  0

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Prof Norman Palmer

  3 May 2001 to 2 May 2006

  0

  UK Sport

  Sir Rodney Walker

  7 July 1998 to 18 September 2001 and 19 September 2001 to 18 September 2003

  36,705

  West Midlands Regional Cultural Consortium

  Baroness Crawley

  30 September 1999 to 29 September 2002

  0

  Yorkshire and Humber Regional Cultural Consortium

  Chris Heinitz

  28 September 1999 to 8 January 2001

  0

  Yorkshire and Humber Regional Cultural Consortium

  Clive Leach CBE

  27 March 2001 to 26 March 2004

  0

  1 From 1 April 2000 the BFI ceased to be an NDPB, and became a second tier body funded by the new NDPB, the Film Council.

  2 Before the changes in the Machinery of Government in June 2001, appointments to these NDPB's were the responsibility of the Home Office.

  3The position of Chair rotates on an annual basis, with the choice made by members of the Commission.

  Chairs of commissions
  See National Lottery Commission in table.

  Chairs of public inquiries
  None.

  Chairs of agencies

  Royal Parks Advisory Board
  Hilary Lade—1 June 1999 to 30 May 2002
  Remuneration nil

  Chairs of taskforces
  Information on the number, remit and membership of taskforces, ad-hoc advisory groups and reviews has been published by the Cabinet Office on a regular basis. The first report was published on 11 January 2000 and gives information for the period between 1 May 1997 to 31 October 1999. A second report was published on 27 July 2000 and covered the period 1 November 1999 to 30 April 2000. A third report was published on 13 December 2000 covering the period I May 2000 to 31 October 2000. The most recent report: "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews", was issued in October 2001. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Sport England
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been allocated by Sport England to(a) Bradford, (b) Leeds, (c) Sheffield, (d) Manchester and (e) Hull. [33950]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total amount of lottery funding awarded by Sport England to each of these cities is as follows:

  £ million

  City

  Funding awarded

  Bradford

  4.3

  Leeds

  26.8

  Sheffield

  42.1

  Manchester

  120.1

  Kingston upon Hull

  1.5

  Commonwealth Games
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Government funding is being made available to Manchester to support the Commonwealth Games. [34763]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government announced on 2 July 2001 up to £30 million in support for the Games. This was part of the £80 million in additional funding and £25 million contingency fund for the Games made up of funds from Manchester city council, Sport England and Government announced on the same day. We have also given a further £10.5 million towards the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies. This brings Government assistance to the Games to a total of £40.5 million.

  Gambling
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the impact on the number of public houses if the number of gaming machines is restricted as recommended by the Budd report; [34742]

  (2) what estimate has been made of the impact on employment in the gaming machine industry if the recommendations of the Budd report are agreed. [34741]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have made no estimates. The Government published the report of the independent Gambling Review Body, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, in July last year and have been considering all the comments on it received since then. These include representations which argue that there would be adverse consequences for the gaming machines industry and the licensed trade if the Government were fully to implement the report's recommendations about gaming machines in pubs.

  I expect that we will be in a position to announce our conclusions within the next two months.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with her counterparts in the Home Office and what assessment she has made of the constitutional, administrative and financial implications for community amateur sports clubs seeking charitable status under the terms outlined in the Treasury consultation paper, "Promoting Sport in the Community". [34512]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have discussed these issues with the Home Office. However, I am fully aware of the concerns of many sports clubs about the possible implications of applying for charitable status under the Charity Commission's proposals (as outlined in "Promoting Sport in the Community"). These issues have been considered in detail by the DCMS Tax Working Group, which includes representatives of my Department, Sport England, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and other interested bodies, and I shall be discussing them with John Stoker of the Charity Commission when I meet him on 12 February.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer from the Minister for Sport of 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 473W, on sports clubs, if she will publish evidence to support his statement that the majority of local authorities grant 100 per cent. rate relief. [35190]

  Mr. Caborn
  No detailed figures exist for the numbers of clubs currently receiving discretionary rates relief from local authorities. My answer of 17 January to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) was based on general information provided to DCMS by sport's representative bodies in the course of discussions before, and since, the issue of the Treasury's consultation document, "Promoting Sport in the Community", in November 2001.

  Sport Funding
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide an analysis for the money provided to sport in the UK since 1977, broken down by source; and what her plans for future expenditure are. [34479]

  Mr. Caborn
  The main Exchequer and lottery funding provided to sport in England is as follows. Funding for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a devolved matter and is an issue for those Administrations.

  £million

  GBSC

  ESC

  UKSC

  SM (E)

  Lottery

  Other Exchequer

  1977–78

  11.50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1978–79

  15.20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  15.58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  19.29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  21.03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  28.00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  27.12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  28.60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  30.11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  37.35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  37.15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  38.41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  41.88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  44.75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  410W

  £million

  GBSC

  ESC

  UKSC

  SM (E)

  Lottery

  Other Exchequer

  1991–92

  46.70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  48.60

  —

  —

  1

  —

  0.9

  1993–94

  50.60

  —

  —

  2.9

  —

  0.9

  1994–95

  48.90

  —

  —

  3.3

  48.88

  0.9

  1995–96

  49.25

  —

  —

  3.7

  255.21

  0.9

  1996–97

  28.17

  15.24

  4.00

  3.2

  263.94

  0.9

  1997–98

  —

  33.73

  11.80

  3.2

  302.92

  0.9

  1998–99

  —

  33.29

  11.60

  3.2

  252.26

  0.9

  1999–2000

  —

  34.50

  12.60

  3.37

  212.48

  0.9

  2000–01

  —

  34.6

  12.6

  3.37

  223.47

  1.475

  2001–02

  —

  39.6

  17.6

  3.43

  224

  5.475

  2002–03

  —

  49.7

  19.6

  3.43

  1202

  10.980

  2003–04

  —

  74.6

  19.6

  3.43

  1188

  35.485

  2004–05

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1185

  0.960

  2005–06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1185

  —

  1Figures for 2002–03 onwards are estimates

  Notes:

  GBSC = Great Britain Sports Council

  ESC = English Sports Council

  UKSC = United Kingdom Sports Council (established in September 1996 and became fully operational in January 1997)

  SM(E) = Sportsmatch (England) (Established in November 1992 Sportsmatch allocation paid by Sport England from 1999–2000) GBSC funding directed towards England and GB-wide issues

  FLA = Football Licensing Authority

  Other Exchequer includes Commonwealth Games, the Football Licensing Authority, the Volunteering in Sport initiative, funding for the British Chess Foundation, and funding towards children's play.

  1. Additional funding includes £14.2 million in 2001–02, £24.3 million in 2002–03 and £34.7 million in 2003–04, which will be distributed to Specialist Sports Colleges. Funds will be distributed by DFES to individual sports colleges. This scheme was announced July 2000.

  2. In addition there are also a number of sport funding programmes which are funded through the New Opportunities Fund:

  £581 million in England will be provided through the PE and Sport Programme. All funding will be committed by 2005. Announced by Prime Minister in September 2000. Local education authorities will act as lead organisations in submitting applications to the New Opportunities Fund;

  £30 million for England to be administered by Sport England via the Playing Fields and Community Green Spaces scheme. It is planned that all funding will be committed by 2005. Scheme commenced in April 2001;

  £9 million is to be delivered by Barnardo's and Children's Play Council through the Better Play Grant programme. Planned that all funding will be committed by 2003;

  £38.75 million to be committed by 2003 through the Activities for Young People programme. Distributed by NOF to lead organisations in 47 Connexions areas. Launched in August 2001;

  £25.5 million to be committed by 2004 through the Out of School Hours Sport Activities scheme. This will be distributed through partnership between NOF and Sports Councils;

  £130 million to be distributed through the Space for Sport and Arts scheme 2003–04. Grants paid to local education authorities by Sport England which is administering the scheme. The scheme was announced in March 2001.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the value was of the(a) National Lottery and (b) Treasury contribution to (i) Sport England, (ii) UK Sport and (iii) other such funded sporting bodies in (A) 1997–98, (B) 1998–99, (C) 1999–2000 and (D) 2000–01. [34768]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  411W

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (a) National Lottery

  Sport England

  268,223,735

  211,013,692

  188,916,494

  195,066,428

  UK Sport

  0

  0

  16,496,000

  20,123,262

  (b) Treasury

  Sport England

  33,725,000

  33,289,000

  33,873,000

  37,973,000

  UK sport

  11,800,000

  11,600,000

  12,600,000

  12,600,000

  The FLA

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  925,000

  Lottery Funding (Distribution)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will announce the names of the 50 areas to be targeted in the effort to ensure equitable regional distribution of lottery funding; and what criteria her Department is using to determine the areas. [35433]

  Mr. Caborn
  The initiative will target deprived areas which have fared relatively badly from lottery funding. The decision on which areas the initiative will support is a matter for the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund. The full list of areas to benefit has yet to be finalised but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Libraries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many libraries have(a) opened and (b) closed since 1997. [34921]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of library openings and closures is not held centrally. However, the total number of libraries in England between 1996–97 and 1999–2000 was:

  Number

  1996–97

  3,083

  1997–98

  3,053

  1998–99

  3,037

  1999–2000

  3,031

  Note:

  The figures reflect branch and central libraries only. They do not include mobile libraries or special services provided by English library authorities to senior citizens homes and others in sheltered

  Transitional funding for former grant-maintained schools, by LEA

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  LEA

  Transitional Funding

  Transitional funding

  DfEE grant

  302

  Barnet

  71,031

  530,634

  195,885

  800

  Bath and NE Somerset

  0

  176,783

  120,106

  820

  Bedfordshire

  885,955

  768,730

  407,874

  303

  Bexley

  95,848

  44,174

  37,034

  330

  Birmingham

  1,642,412

  1,692,411

  1,025,975

  889

  Blackburn with Darwen

  34,672

  0

  0

  350

  Bolton

  184,475

  259,095

  190,428

  837

  Bournemouth

  0

  578,784

  293,882

  380

  Bradford

  147,960

  0

  0

  304

  Brent

  2,123,836

  2,299,839

  995,431

  305

  Bromley

  1,392,578

  783,673

  581,622

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  761,590

  793,965

  288,901

  351

  Bury

  35,346

  17,575

  16,954

  381

  Calderdale

  65,817

  12,696

  12,696

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  688,107

  323,530

  195,964

  412W
  housing schemes. In 1999–2000 the figures for these two types of provision were, respectively, 440 mobiles and 14,617 outlets in institutions.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding was given to libraries to increase the range of their services in the last 12 months. [34922]

  Dr. Howells
  Core funding for public libraries is provided through the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS) Block. In the latest Local Government Financial Settlement (for 2002–03) the funds for this block were increased by 4.2 per cent., a real terms increase of 1.7 per cent.

  It is for local authorities to decide how much of their EPCS funding to allocate to their libraries in line with their statutory duty to provide library services that are comprehensive and efficient.

  Specific project funding of over £2.3 million has been made available in 2000–01 through the joint DCMS/Wolfson Foundation Public Libraries Challenge Fund.

  Through the New Opportunities Fund Community Access to Lifelong Learning Programme £120 million of lottery funding is being made available to enable all public libraries to offer public internet access and ICT learning facilities by December 2002.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Transitional Funding
  Mr. Daisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list by local education authority and for each financial year for which the present grant maintained transitional funding arrangements have been in operation(a) the level of transitional grant payable by the local education authority to former grant maintained schools and (b) the level of grant paid by the Department to the local education authority towards meeting the cost. [28888]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The information requested is set out in the following table. No grant was payable by the Department in respect of transitional funding for former grant-maintained schools in the financial year 1999–2000. Comprehensive figures for the financial year 2001–02 are not yet available.
  413W

  Transitional funding for former grant-maintained schools, by LEA

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  LEA

  Transitional Funding

  Transitional funding

  DfEE grant

  202

  Camden

  291,273

  108,754

  19,240

  875

  Cheshire

  69,279

  142,966

  58,816

  892

  City of Nottingham

  190,075

  65,362

  65,362

  874

  City of Peterborough

  504,672

  62,835

  60,937

  879

  City of Plymouth

  108,504

  77,238

  49,615

  908

  Cornwall

  24,074

  0

  0

  306

  Croydon

  500,640

  652,682

  405,598

  909

  Cumbria

  649,980

  388,718

  198,556

  831

  Derby

  225,299

  0

  0

  830

  Derbyshire

  269,787

  175,616

  128,227

  878

  Devon

  122,660

  256,891

  202,821

  371

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  835

  Dorset

  55,256

  62,010

  30,728

  332

  Dudley

  60,516

  58,637

  58,637

  307

  Ealing

  594,335

  310,791

  260,371

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  140,971

  103,829

  29,416

  308

  Enfield

  80,452

  119,981

  119,172

  881

  Essex

  950,631

  769,272

  630,844

  916

  Gloucestershire

  662,130

  191,671

  191,671

  203

  Greenwich

  84,453

  115,942

  24,592

  204

  Hackney

  40,160

  6,039

  6,039

  876

  Halton

  128,574

  41,673

  41,673

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  187,471

  315,634

  100,010

  850

  Hampshire

  1,528,892

  842,926

  527,765

  309

  Haringey

  102,843

  0

  0

  310

  Harrow

  57,105

  53,737

  40,388

  311

  Havering

  36,160

  0

  0

  919

  Hertfordshire

  1,186,804

  880,096

  585,439

  312

  Hillingdon

  211,838

  481,515

  192,612

  313

  Hounslow

  53,507

  0

  0

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  320,136

  178,120

  99,445

  886

  Kent

  1,573,338

  429,705

  322,950

  314

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  205,874

  171,245

  57,363

  382

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  340

  Knowsley

  145,282

  147,431

  52,585

  208

  Lambeth

  1,290,889

  3,290,324

  653,913

  888

  Lancashire

  460,342

  418,547

  196,887

  383

  Leeds

  7,047

  50,955

  48,533

  856

  Leicester City

  0

  0

  0

  855

  Leicestershire

  142,928

  147,873

  123,545

  209

  Lewisham

  124,228

  107,826

  29,306

  925

  Lincolnshire

  1,736,810

  726,020

  500,963

  341

  Liverpool

  236,785

  28,608

  18,954

  821

  Luton

  518,253

  492,626

  284,149

  352

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  887

  Medway

  0

  39,815

  39,815

  315

  Merton

  102,048

  65,718

  63,267

  826

  Milton Keynes

  1,720,803

  1,140,724

  367,308

  316

  Newham

  0

  97,518

  67,692

  926

  Norfolk

  290,250

  674,673

  527,581

  392

  North Tyneside

  29,430

  0

  0

  815

  North Yorkshire

  14,009

  27,152

  3,072

  928

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  929

  Northumberland

  4,412

  493

  493

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  241,444

  204,787

  106,176

  931

  Oxfordshire

  14,212

  0

  0

  836

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  851

  Portsmouth

  106,441

  25,600

  18,174

  870

  Reading

  160,112

  288,276

  128,445

  317

  Redbridge

  36,118

  100,035

  41,613

  354

  Rochdale

  0

  50,393

  38,649

  857

  Rutland

  51,266

  36,622

  10,883

  355

  Salford

  142,434

  101,789

  41,316

  333

  Sandwell

  174,859

  74,434

  54,019

  373

  Sheffield

  n/a

  694,477

  214,427

  893

  Shropshire

  50,261

  81,801

  62,413

  871

  Slough

  40,048

  24,876

  10,926

  334

  Solihull

  11,525

  0

  0

  933

  Somerset

  174,827

  235,726

  65,257

  852

  Southampton

  36,860

  43,883

  43,883

  414W 415W

  Transitional funding for former grant-maintained schools, by LEA

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  LEA

  Transitional Funding

  Transitional funding

  DfEE grant

  882

  Southend

  459,236

  49,719

  46,170

  210

  Southwark

  210,422

  29,184

  25,957

  860

  Staffordshire

  141,638

  149,237

  138,410

  861

  Stoke

  29,437

  144,425

  71,418

  936

  Surrey

  1,816,620

  1,145,033

  540,039

  319

  Sutton

  186,052

  0

  0

  866

  Swindon

  369,963

  197,579

  196,778

  357

  Tameside

  10,098

  25,408

  25,408

  894

  Telford and Wrekin

  0

  0

  0

  883

  Thurrock

  55,824

  80,996

  51,327

  880

  Torbay

  127,842

  151,976

  82,767

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  358

  Trafford

  551,626

  0

  0

  335

  Walsall

  156,050

  193,182

  130,414

  320

  Waltham Forest

  634,230

  638,143

  241,662

  212

  Wandsworth

  1,992,248

  2,322,908

  636,380

  937

  Warwickshire

  352,368

  770,093

  349,159

  869

  West Berkshire

  234,476

  150,876

  97,074

  938

  West Sussex

  23,921

  51,545

  19,735

  865

  Wiltshire

  86,110

  211,455

  164,937

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  102,045

  154,079

  66,864

  344

  Wirral

  207,686

  229,985

  177,210

  872

  Wokingham

  7,616

  17,988

  12,540

  336

  Wolverhampton

  445,066

  268,721

  170,163

  885

  Worcestershire

  40,033

  31,986

  14,317

  Notes:

  The figures relating to 1999–2000 derive from information provided by local education authorities, through the budget statements produced by them under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and in response to subsequent inquiries by the Department. n/a—indicates that figures are not available.

  The figures for 2000–01 are derived from LEAs' section 52 budget statements, modified where necessary in the light of information subsequently provided by LEAs in connection with their grant claims; and from the Department's grant records.

  Mr. Daisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list by local education authority and for each financial year for which present arrangements have been in operation the former grant maintained schools with protected funding receiving transitional funding of more than 5 per cent. of their protected funding, indicating in each case(a) the level of transitional grant and (b) the transitional grant as a percentage of the protected funding. [28889]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The information requested for the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is set out in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Comprehensive figures for the financial year 2001–02 are not yet available.

  LEAs (Repairs)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 447W, on LEAs (Repairs), if she will categorise the estimated cost of repair or renewal work needed for each local authority by(a) priority 1, (b) priority 2 and (c) priority 3 work. [32896]

  John Healey
  The following table summarises school premises condition information derived from the asset management plan data provided by local education authorities. Priority 1 covers urgent work; Priority 2 shows work needed within two years; Priority 3 is for work needed within three to five years. Costs have been adjusted to current prices and take account of regional variations in pricing levels.
  416W
  The figures are derived from data supplied by LEAs over the past two years, based on surveys carried out mainly in 1999 or early 2000. Over £5.5 billion of capital funding has been made available by the Department from 1999–2000 until 2001–02, enabling LEAs and schools to tackle a significant proportion of the school repair and renewal needs which had built up over many years. A further £6.3 billion will be available from 2002–03 to 2003–04.

  £ million

  AMP condition data

  Priority 1

  Priority 2

  Priority 2

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.2

  3.8

  0.4

  Barnet

  7.1

  32.9

  5.0

  Barnsley

  0.8

  23.3

  11.7

  Bath and North East Somerset

  3.2

  8.8

  7.4

  Bedfordshire

  0.1

  29.2

  14.3

  Bexley

  5.4

  10.9

  12.3

  Birmingham

  34.2

  56.6

  43.7

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1.2

  7.4

  6.0

  Bolton

  1.0

  25.4

  23.0

  Bournemouth

  1.8

  6.6

  9.2

  Bracknell Forest

  0.7

  7.7

  2.8

  Brent

  2.6

  6.8

  24.8

  Brighton and Hove

  0.0

  11.7

  10.1

  Bristol, City of

  5.5

  35.3

  30.4

  Bromley

  5.7

  3.3

  18.6

  Buckinghamshire

  2.4

  25.7

  31.7

  Cambridgshire

  1.5

  29.3

  33.2

  Camden

  4.9

  1.1

  7.5

  Cheshire

  1.4

  16.4

  31.2

  Cornwall

  0.0

  25.2

  39.3

  Coventry

  2.9

  14.2

  17.0

  Croydon

  7.6

  9.0

  2.3

  Cumbria

  0.7

  10.9

  43.3

  Darlington

  0.1

  8.0

  10.9

  Derby, City of

  14.7

  9.4

  19.5

  417W

  £ million

  AMP condition data

  Priority 1

  Priority 2

  Priority 2

  Derbyshire

  3.0

  90.0

  50.5

  Devon

  3.2

  37.7

  45.1

  Doncaster

  0.0

  10.2

  60.4

  Dorset

  3.0

  20.6

  32.3

  Durham

  0.1

  59.1

  45.9

  Ealing

  16.4

  13.1

  7.0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1.0

  29.0

  52.1

  East Sussex

  5.9

  16.0

  11.3

  Enfield

  2.1

  23.5

  23.5

  Essex

  16.5

  95.9

  51.8

  Gateshead

  3.2

  6.0

  7.5

  Gloucestershire

  1.8

  30.5

  13.1

  Greenwich

  7.4

  22.5

  3.4

  Hackney

  3.3

  18.5

  9.2

  Halton

  2.1

  1.5

  14.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3.1

  7.5

  6.5

  Hampshire

  7.6

  93.5

  147.2

  Harrow

  2.1

  8.3

  8.8

  Hartlepool

  1.1

  8.0

  6.8

  Havering

  6.1

  15.5

  25.3

  Herefordshire

  0.0

  10.4

  4.7

  Hertfordshire

  5.0

  39.6

  39.1

  Hillingdon

  3.4

  11.1

  10.7

  Hounslow

  2.0

  14.4

  12.

  Isle of Wight

  1.9

  6.3

  7.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2.8

  1.4

  2.9

  Kent

  6.2

  70.4

  43.2

  Kingston-upon-Hull, City of

  0.0

  24.2

  28.1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  5.4

  8.7

  7.0

  Kirklees

  25.5

  18.0

  41.6

  Knowsley

  1.5

  7.4

  25.8

  Lancashire

  18.2

  167.5

  79.0

  Leeds

  22.8

  56.3

  61.9

  Leicester, City of

  0.1

  22.7

  16.8

  Leicestershire

  4.0

  38.0

  30.5

  Lewisham

  2.9

  14.4

  24.8

  Lincolnshire

  10.0

  12.0

  12.7

  Liverpool

  21.2

  21.1

  16.2

  Luton

  2.1

  11.2

  13.4

  Manchester

  35.8

  10.0

  45.7

  Medway

  0.1

  10.0

  13.8

  Merton

  0.0

  12.5

  6.2

  Milton Keynes

  0.3

  7.6

  20.3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0.9

  35.9

  33.8

  Newham

  9.7

  10.0

  24.9

  Norfolk

  11.8

  35.6

  27.7

  North-East Lincolnshire

  6.2

  32.3

  6.9

  North Lincolnshire

  2.7

  5.1

  10.3

  North Somerset

  5.7

  15.2

  5.5

  North Tyneside

  0.8

  13.1

  18.9

  North Yorkshire

  3.9

  11.2

  28.9

  Northamptonshire

  2.4

  21.4

  40.6

  Northumberland

  0.0

  32.8

  18.9

  Nottingham

  1.0

  26.1

  25.7

  Nottinghamshire

  3.5

  48.5

  58.2

  Oldham

  0.1

  34.4

  26.3

  Oxfordshire

  0.0

  53.6

  10.6

  Peterborough

  8.1

  9.7

  14.1

  Plymouth

  5.7

  15.4

  18.8

  Poole

  0.0

  4.5

  11.4

  Portsmouth

  0.0

  10.3

  10.3

  Reading

  3.0

  11.7

  4.7

  Redbridge

  0.3

  13.9

  19.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0.0

  15.7

  11.6

  Rochdale

  12.7

  15.8

  25.9

  Rotherham

  19.9

  15.7

  27.6

  Rutland

  0.5

  1.3

  2.0

  Sandwell

  0.3

  17.9

  6.2

  Sefton

  5.9

  33.9

  11.3

  Sheffield

  12.8

  22.5

  35.8

  418W

  £ million

  AMP condition data

  Priority 1

  Priority 2

  Priority 2

  Shropshire

  0.7

  11.4

  13.1

  Slough

  5.5

  7.3

  5.9

  Solihull

  2.9

  5.7

  13.9

  Somerset

  0.0

  27.9

  24.3

  South Gloucestershire

  5.1

  12.6

  15.7

  South Tyneside

  0.0

  16.4

  14.2

  Southend-on-Sea

  0.0

  4.4

  8.2

  Southwark

  0.9

  13.9

  9.1

  St. Helens

  0.3

  5.8

  17.8

  Staffordshire

  0.0

  43.3

  40.0

  Stockport

  8.3

  8.1

  56.7

  Stockton-on-Tees

  17.3

  12.2

  17.2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  22.0

  42.2

  0.5

  Suffolk

  13.2

  9.7

  19.2

  Sunderland

  26.6

  15.3

  12.3

  Sutton

  1.0

  10.4

  4.7

  Swindon

  7.4

  20.4

  15.9

  Tameside

  3.1

  19.5

  10.8

  Telford and Wrekin

  7.1

  7.7

  20.1

  Thurrock

  0.2

  6.8

  11.8

  Torbay

  2.2

  4.8

  4.2

  Tower Hamlets

  0.3

  10.2

  17.5

  Trafford

  7.2

  1.9

  29.2

  Wakefield

  11.1

  24.9

  36.0

  Walsall

  7.6

  40.0

  16.5

  Waltham Forest

  1.7

  12.6

  13.5

  Wandsworth

  0.7

  40.1

  9.1

  Warrington

  3.6

  9.2

  13.4

  West Berkshire

  5.5

  7.1

  4.6

  West Sussex

  4.2

  27.1

  45.1

  Westminster

  4.3

  8.1

  12.0

  Wiltshire

  0.0

  36.3

  20.5

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2.3

  7.4

  22.8

  Wirral

  35.4

  6.7

  17.7

  Workingham

  6.2

  16.8

  1.7

  Wolverhampton

  10.6

  17.3

  15.7

  Worcestershire

  1.5

  38.7

  20.2

  Total

  710.4

  2,844.4

  2,827.6

  Note:

  Fifteen authorities are currently reviewing their assessments.

  More work is needed to confirm the data, but initial broad estimates are that these authorities' needs amount to £55 million, £250 million and £330 million of Priority 1, 2 and 3 work respectively.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contracts were let by her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers,(b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33846]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total underspend in her Department was on(a) capital and (b) non-capital expenditure in each financial year since May 1997. [34029]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The split into capital and non-capital is shown in the table.
  419W

  £ million

  year

  Current underspend

  Capital underspend

  Total underspend

  2000–01

  343

  1,111

  1,454

  1999–2000

  129

  699

  828

  1998–99

  55

  604

  659

  1997–98

  25

  335

  360

  The total underspends for 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are calculated against the departmental expenditure limits (including programmes funded from the windfall tax), whereas the underspend for 1997–98 is calculated against the old control total.

  Since 1998–99 Departments have been allowed to carry forward any DEL budget provision that is not spent in one year into the following year. More limited end year flexibility applied before this date. The change in carry forward has enabled the Department to better manage its resources and the Secretary of State uses this mechanism to deploy resources under her control where they are most needed and to ensure spending is profiled to maximise value for money.

  Study Leave
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the results of the statistical impact of "Right to Time Off for Study" for 16 to 17-year-olds have been published. [34094]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No. This information is not collected centrally.

  Capital funding for new school places

  £000

  Local education authority

  1998–99

  1999–200

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  632

  530

  0

  2,274

  0

  3,436

  Barnet

  1,196

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,196

  Barnsley

  79

  0

  0

  0

  0

  79

  Bath and North East Somerset

  120

  0

  528

  1,340

  1,943

  3,931

  Bedfordshire

  1,731

  2,547

  1,981

  7,278

  1,323

  14,860

  Bexley

  3,259

  2,175

  2,110

  4,404

  0

  11,948

  Birmingham

  110

  0

  0

  0

  1,379

  1,489

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  45

  45

  Blackpool

  0

  5,291

  1,397

  4,230

  0

  10,918

  Bolton

  1,088

  913

  591

  0

  0

  2,592

  Bournemouth

  751

  1,472

  0

  0

  0

  2,223

  Brent

  0

  1,070

  3,010

  0

  1,658

  5,738

  Brighton and Hove

  1,876

  3,316

  0

  765

  951

  6,908

  Bromley

  0

  1,198

  0

  0

  0

  1,198

  Buckinghamshire

  4,579

  5,372

  2,490

  1,822

  4,203

  18,466

  Bury

  0

  4,198

  0

  0

  0

  4,198

  Calderdale

  930

  0

  1,238

  341

  1,086

  3,595

  Cambridgeshire

  4,614

  6,792

  8,563

  9,648

  12,358

  41,975

  Camden

  496

  290

  806

  0

  500

  2,092

  Cheshire

  2,332

  2,707

  5,018

  1,685

  2,925

  14,667

  Cornwall

  3,217

  6,793

  6,579

  6,557

  5,922

  29,068

  Croydon

  351

  1,070

  0

  2,871

  0

  4,292

  Cumbria

  1,844

  2,764

  3,388

  3,420

  2,142

  13,558

  Derby

  993

  532

  0

  1,629

  291

  3,445

  Derbyshire

  476

  1,728

  1,079

  2,683

  7,054

  13,020

  Devon

  3,682

  7,526

  4,648

  16,563

  23,246

  55,665

  Doncaster

  0

  2,002

  0

  141

  0

  2,143

  Dorset

  1,460

  586

  2,624

  2,063

  2,108

  8,841

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [34203]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It is not possible to list each new publication issued by the Department since 1997 without disproportionate expense. Within the Department's advertising and publicity budget, the total spend on publications since April 1997 is £8 million, broken down as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  2.1

  1997–99

  0.8

  1999–2000

  2.8

  2000–01

  2.3

  The figures do not include spending by the Department's agencies.

  New Schools
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 720W, how much capital funding was provided for new school places in each education authority since 1997. [34656]

  John Healey
  We do not hold information in the form requested before 1998–99. The allocation of borrowing approvals to local education authorities for the provision of new school places from 1998–99 until 2002–03 is shown in the table. Local education authorities will be able to confirm actual investment in the provision of school places.
  421W

  Capital funding for new school places

  £000

  Local education authority

  1998–99

  1999–200

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Dudley

  321

  2,266

  1,736

  0

  0

  4,323

  Durham

  0

  0

  765

  0

  0

  765

  Ealing

  502

  1,614

  0

  932

  1,649

  4,697

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4,148

  9,087

  3,333

  1,239

  6,459

  24,266

  East Sussex

  3,139

  2,208

  4,172

  4,113

  10,949

  24,581

  Enfield

  5,347

  0

  0

  5,589

  18,998

  29,934

  Essex

  4,182

  6,661

  10,462

  11,782

  7,608

  40,695

  Gloucestershire

  2,109

  7,767

  12,942

  5,159

  7,501

  35,478

  Hackney

  3,205

  0

  0

  5,001

  0

  8,206

  Halton

  0

  506

  100

  0

  0

  606

  Hampshire

  2,037

  7,885

  5,661

  8,699

  11,210

  35,492

  Haringey

  2,100

  2,141

  2,210

  7,647

  10,458

  24,556

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  3,303

  0

  3,303

  Herefordshire

  1,490

  3,083

  58

  570

  2,054

  7,255

  Hertfordshire

  2,165

  1,779

  3,675

  4,345

  6,589

  18,553

  Hillingdon

  1,068

  0

  6,644

  0

  2,651

  10,363

  Hounslow

  1,419

  0

  0

  0

  648

  2,067

  Isle of Wight

  1,930

  3,955

  3,497

  2,399

  3,379

  15,160

  Kent

  1,043

  11,664

  16,639

  21,971

  41,915

  93,232

  Kirklees

  953

  563

  2,476

  2,019

  816

  6,827

  Knowsley

  1,228

  0

  0

  1,086

  0

  2,314

  Lancashire

  1,130

  3,367

  2,656

  235

  801

  8,189

  Leeds

  405

  1,814

  2,639

  1,804

  1,210

  7,872

  Leicestershire

  1,419

  3,693

  911

  4,033

  1,333

  11,389

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10,201

  10,201

  Lincolnshire

  1,311

  6,746

  11,208

  5,496

  1,551

  26,312

  Luton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,935

  1,935

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,572

  1,572

  Medway

  0

  851

  9,842

  4,832

  7,990

  23,515

  Milton Keynes

  7,758

  4,074

  1,604

  8,263

  0

  21,699

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  314

  0

  0

  0

  0

  314

  Newham

  4,468

  3,750

  1,887

  899

  13,154

  24,158

  Norfolk

  3,039

  3,209

  7,729

  5,761

  10,012

  29,750

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  226

  390

  209

  825

  North Somerset

  1,336

  0

  1,582

  0

  992

  3,910

  North Tyneside

  229

  734

  1,605

  1,232

  0

  3,800

  North Yorkshire

  2,395

  3,926

  5,552

  5,952

  8,017

  25,842

  Northamptonshire

  3,266

  4,563

  6,350

  2,561

  7,299

  24,039

  Northumberland

  359

  957

  280

  900

  0

  2,496

  Nottinghamshire

  332

  0

  0

  1,059

  2,301

  3,692

  Oldham

  1,008

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,008

  Oxfordshire

  5,945

  4,036

  5,048

  9,055

  9,254

  33,338

  Peterborough

  0

  1,855

  0

  460

  0

  2,315

  Plymouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6,987

  6,987

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  0

  290

  290

  Portsmouth

  537

  838

  0

  0

  0

  1,375

  Reading

  376

  0

  3,400

  0

  0

  3,776

  Redbridge

  27

  4,761

  3,123

  580

  0

  8,491

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,945

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,945

  Rotherham

  608

  675

  0

  5,510

  608

  7,401

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,292

  2,292

  Sandwell

  0

  986

  0

  0

  0

  986

  Sefton

  0

  459

  578

  643

  1,280

  2,960

  Sheffield

  209

  1,624

  2,954

  0

  0

  4,787

  Shropshire

  1,157

  1,135

  2,438

  2,132

  279

  7,141

  Slough

  0

  0

  110

  576

  197

  883

  Solihull

  2,089

  1,829

  2,441

  4,886

  0

  11,245

  Somerset

  430

  1,349

  4,262

  3,142

  1,345

  10,528

  South Gloucestershire

  929

  2,716

  4,671

  2,949

  1,126

  12,391

  Southampton

  451

  2,315

  1,164

  0

  0

  3,930

  Southend-on-Sea

  0

  0

  3,577

  1,441

  1,440

  6,458

  Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  785

  0

  785

  Staffordshire

  1,753

  10,690

  10,867

  6,382

  2,100

  31,792

  Stockport

  149

  2,166

  4,594

  0

  0

  6,909

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0

  1,213

  2,185

  0

  3,398

  Suffolk

  3,659

  8,500

  7,892

  8,013

  11,765

  39,829

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  1,800

  152

  0

  1,952

  Surrey

  1,236

  90

  12,093

  7,451

  11,720

  32,590

  Sutton

  2,228

  2,208

  5,768

  0

  4,661

  14,865

  Swindon

  653

  0

  0

  0

  19,074

  19,727

  Tameside

  259

  298

  187

  0

  0

  744

  422W 423W

  Capital funding for new school palaces

  £000

  Local education authority

  1998–99

  1999–200

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Telford and Wrekin

  909

  1,340

  2,716

  902

  7,731

  13,598

  Thurrock

  42

  1,079

  5,023

  0

  0

  6,144

  Torbay

  1,504

  1,286

  1,477

  645

  0

  4,912

  Trafford

  239

  548

  4,203

  0

  0

  4,990

  Wakefield

  0

  4,677

  607

  0

  0

  5,284

  Walsall

  0

  353

  0

  0

  602

  955

  Waltham Forest

  1,527

  948

  0

  1,108

  1,826

  5,409

  Wandsworth

  426

  1,481

  0

  0

  0

  1,907

  Warrington

  211

  623

  4,451

  2,643

  1,764

  9,692

  Warwickshire

  1,662

  1,542

  832

  838

  918

  5,792

  West Berkshire

  633

  0

  2,206

  0

  2,102

  4,941

  West Sussex

  1,260

  2,386

  1,253

  3,278

  7,467

  15,644

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3,700

  3,700

  Wigan

  0

  4,137

  885

  0

  8,426

  13,448

  Wiltshire

  2,629

  646

  2,822

  4,312

  2,133

  12,542

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  909

  0

  0

  341

  0

  1,250

  Wokingham

  415

  1,154

  4,168

  1,999

  747

  8,483

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  343

  0

  0

  343

  Worcestershire

  2,988

  7,575

  2,574

  3,125

  4,422

  20,684

  York

  5

  0

  0

  0

  90

  95

  Total

  143,970

  238,040

  286,231

  274,518

  386,941

  1,329,700

  Note:

  These figures show new allocations of basic need funding for additional school places. This funding is delivered over three years in a 35 per cent./50 per cent./15 per cent. split. The figures do not, therefore, correspond to the funding received by local education authorities in these years

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by her Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34995]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills from whom she received advice concerning possible abuse of the Individual Learning Accounts scheme prior to its commencement; and what response was given by her Department. [35210]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: My Department actively engaged a wide range of key stakeholders in the development of the Individual Learning Accounts programme. For example, a number of seminars were held with learning providers in 2000, prior to the introduction of the National Framework for Individual Learning Accounts, and these continued into 2001. At these and other similar events and meetings providers expressed a wide range of opinions which helped inform and shape the development, implementation and presentation of ILA policy.

  Educational Maintenance Allowance (Lincolnshire)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many recipients of an educational maintenance allowance there are in North 424W
  East Lincolnshire; and what assessment she has made of the impact of the allowance on encouraging 16 to 18-year-olds to stay in full-time education. [35319]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As of the 1 February 2002, 478 students in North East Lincolnshire have received at least one payment of educational maintenance allowance (EMA) this academic year.

  The DfES has commissioned the Centre for Research in Social Policy to conduct a rigorous evaluation of EMAs which is now in its third year of data collection. First year findings have already been published and these early findings show that EMA appears to have raised participation in further education. The statistical analysis estimates an average gain in participation in pilot areas compared to control areas, among EMA eligible young people, of around 5 percentage points.

  Internet Training (North-West)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of teachers have received training for the internet in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) St. Helens MBC area,(c) Merseyside,(d) Manchester, (e) the North West RDA area, (f) the other RDA areas and (g) England. [35422]

  John Healey
  Training for the Internet is covered by the nationally run New Opportunities Fund (NOF) Information and Communications Technology (ICT) teacher training programme. Schools have until the end of March this year to sign up for the NOF training and over 95 per cent. have already done so.

  The information relating to the numbers of teachers who have completed the training is not available by the regional areas requested. However, the figures available as at 31 December 2001 show that 83 per cent. of all teachers in England have registered for, or are currently

  425W
  undertaking, the NOF training and 52 per cent. of all teachers have completed it. Teachers may have also undertaken locally organised training in the use of the internet but figures are not collected on these training schemes centrally. All newly qualified teachers entering the profession will have received training in the use of the internet as part of their initial teacher training.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in her 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 she will make a statement. [35938]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information is not held by my Department in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Procedures put in place to reduce work related stress include:
  Training events on stress management available to all staff;
  An interactive on-line package to help with recognition and prevention of stress;
  An Employee Assistance Service which includes an advice and counselling service;
  An Occupational Health Service that provides practical advice on occupational health issues; and
  A wide range of initiatives providing practical advice and tips to individuals on techniques to deal with stress and maintain a healthy work life balance.

  My Department is committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for all its employees. Arising from the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative, it is also committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to work related injuries and illness. This includes ensuring that work practises are safe and free from any hazards to health and that effective occupational health policies and good health management practices are developed.

  No compensation has been paid to employees specifically for work related stress in any of the last three years.

  School unsuccessful in their application specialist status in the October 2001 competition by LEA

  LEA

  School

  Specialism

  Barking and Dagenham

  Sydney Russell School (The)

  Technology

  Bedfordshire

  St. John's School

  Technology

  Bedfordshire

  Wootton Upper School

  Arts

  Birmingham

  Castle Vale School

  Arts

  Birmingham

  Fairfax School

  Arts

  Birmingham

  Hillcrest School and Sixth Form Centre

  Language

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Our Lady and Saint John RC High School

  Arts

  Bolton

  Canon Slade School

  Arts

  Bolton

  Harper Green School

  Arts

  Bracknell Forest

  Garth Hill School

  Technology

  Buckinghamshire

  Waddesdon CE School

  Arts

  Cambridgeshire

  Bassingbourn Village College

  Technology

  Cheshire

  Malbank School and Sixth Form Centre

  Arts

  Cheshire

  Wilmslow High School

  Arts

  Cornwall

  Looe Community School

  Arts

  Coventry

  Coventry Blue Coat CE School

  Arts

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what criteria local Learning and Skills Council chairs are to be remunerated for part-time input. [36010]

  Margaret Hodge
  No criteria have been agreed. The current Education Bill includes a clause that would give the Secretary of State for Education and Skills the power to agree terms of remuneration.

  FE Colleges
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reduce the audit burden on further education colleges. [36012]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 January 2002,Official Report, columns 134–35W.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the criteria under which provider reviews are carried out by the Learning and Skills Council in further education colleges. [36026]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is responsible for the reviews of their providers, which include further education colleges. The proposed aims, key areas and evidence requirements for performance reviews were posted on the LSC's website in early September 2001. Views from colleges and other providers, as well as other stakeholders, were sought by December 2001. Drawing on this evaluation, the LSC are publishing a consultation document in early March 2002, which will outline their proposals to simplify and refine the performance review process. Following the consultation, the refined arrangements will be published in autumn 2002.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools broken down by LEA applied for specialist status but were not among the successful applicants announced on 5 February. [36016]

  Mr. Timms
  A list of schools, by LEA, which applied for specialist status in the October 2002 competition, which were not among the successful applicants announced on 5 February 2002 is provided in the following tables.
  427W

  Schools unsuccessful in their application for specialist status in the October 2001 competition by LEA

  LEA

  School

  Specialism

  Croydon

  Norbury Manor High School-Girls

  Language

  Cumbria

  Morton School (The)

  Arts

  Cumbria

  Thorncliffe School

  Sports

  Derbyshire

  John Port School

  Technology

  Devon

  St. Peter's C of E High School

  Language

  Doncaster

  Campsmount School

  Technology

  Doncaster

  Rossington High School

  Sports

  Dudley

  Redhill School

  Arts

  Durham

  Moorside Community College

  Technology

  Durham

  Shotton Hall School

  Arts

  Enfield

  Lea Valley High

  Sports

  Essex

  Rainsford High School

  Arts

  Gloucestershire

  Heywood Community School

  Sports

  Gloucestershire

  Whitecross School

  Language

  Halton

  Heath School (The)

  Technology

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Fulham Cross School

  Language

  Hampshire

  Brookfield Community School

  Language

  Hampshire

  Park Community School

  Arts

  Hampshire

  Vyne Community School (The)

  Arts

  Harrow, London Borough of

  Hatch End High School (joint with) Nower Hill High School

  Arts

  Havering, London Borough of

  Abbs Cross School

  Arts

  Havering, London Borough of

  Emerson Park School

  Arts

  Havering, London Borough of

  Frances Bardsley School for Girls (The)

  Arts

  Havering, London Borough of

  Gaynes School

  Language

  Herefordshire

  John Kyrle High School (The)

  Technology

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth School

  Arts

  Hertfordshire

  Roundwood Park School

  Arts

  Hertfordshire

  St. Michael's Catholic High School

  Language

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  Arts

  Hillingdon, London Borough of

  Uxbridge High School

  Technology

  Kensington and Chelsea, London Borough of

  Sion Manning RC Girls School

  Arts

  Kent

  Astor School

  Arts

  Kingston upon Thames

  Coombe Girls' School

  Language

  Lancashire

  Parklands High School

  Language

  Lancashire

  St. Theodore's RC VA High School

  Sports

  Leeds

  Priesthorpe School

  Sports

  Leeds

  Roundhay School

  Technology

  Leicestershire

  Hind Leys Community College

  Technology

  Leistershire

  Brookvale High School (joint with) Groby Community College

  Language

  Liverpool

  Shorefields Technology School

  Technology

  Manchester

  Saint Paul's Catholic High School

  Technology

  Medway

  Upbury Manor School

  Arts

  Merton

  Bishopsford Community College

  Arts

  Merton

  Raynes Park High School

  Technology

  Middlesbrough

  St. David's Roman Catholic Comprehensive School

  Technology

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  St. Mary's Catholic Comprehensive School

  Arts

  Norfolk

  Cliff Park High School

  Sports

  Norfolk

  Hellesdon High School

  Technology

  Norfolk

  Hewett School

  Arts

  Norfolk

  Sprowston High School

  Arts

  Norfolk

  St. Clement's High School

  Technology

  Norfolk

  Wymondham High School

  Arts

  North Lincolnshire

  High Ridge School

  Sports

  North Tyneside

  Marden High School

  Arts

  North Yorkshire

  Lady Lumley's School

  Technology

  North Yorkshire

  Richmond School

  Arts

  Northamptonshire

  Kingsbrook School

  Language

  Nottinghamshire

  All Saints' RC School (joint with) The Brunts School

  Arts

  Nottinghamshire

  Magnus CE School (The)

  Arts

  Nottinghamshire

  South Wolds School

  Language

  Peterborough

  Bretton Woods Community School

  Arts

  Reading

  Highdown School

  Technology

  Redbridge

  Chadwell Heath Foundation School (The)

  Arts

  Shropshire

  Belvidere School

  Technology

  Shropshire

  Corbet School (The)

  Technology

  Shropshire

  Ludlow Church of England School

  Technology

  Shropshire

  Thomas Adam School (The)

  Arts

  Solihull

  Langley School

  Arts

  Southend on Sea

  Prittlewell School (The)

  Technology

  Staffordshire

  Blackfriars School (Special) (joint with) Madeley High School

  Technology

  Staffordshire

  Blake High School (joint with) Kingsmead School

  Technology

  Staffordshire

  Chase Terrace High School

  Technology

  Stockport

  Marple Hall School

  Sports

  428W 429W

  Schools unsuccessful in their application for specialist status in the October 2001 competition by LEA

  LEA

  School

  Specialism

  Stockton on Tees

  Blakeston Community School

  Sports

  Stoke on Trent

  St. Margaret Ward Catholic High School and Sixth Form

  Arts

  Suffolk

  Mildenhall Upper School

  Technology

  Suffolk

  Sudbury Upper School

  Arts

  Surrey

  Thamesmead School

  Arts

  Sutton

  Glenthorn High School

  Arts

  Telford and Wrekin

  Phoenix School

  Sports

  Trafford

  Altrincham Grammar School-Boys

  Language

  Trafford

  Altrincham Grammar School-Girls

  Language

  Wandsworth

  Battersea Technology College

  Arts

  Warwickshire

  Aylesford School

  Language

  Warwickshire

  Stratford Upon Avon Grammar-Girls

  Language

  West Berkshire

  John O'Gaunt School

  Technology

  West Essex

  Burnt Mill School (joint with) Stewards School

  Arts

  Wigan

  Mornington High School

  Arts

  Windsor and Maidenhead, RB of

  Newlands Girls' School

  Technology

  Wirral

  St. Anselm's College (joint with) Upton Hall School, FCJ

  Technology

  Wokingham

  Bulmershe School (The)

  Sports

  Wokingham

  Maiden Erlegh School

  Arts

  Wokingham

  Waingel's Copse School

  Arts

  Worcestershire

  Kingsley College

  Arts

  Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by what criteria the latest round of schools to achieve specialist status was chosen. [36017]

  Timms
  Applications for specialist school designation in the October 2001 competition were assessed against the published criteria set out in the guidance documents for Arts, Language, Sport and Technology College applicants. Copies of these have been placed in the Library.

  Education Funding
  Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding allocation is made to the Learning and Skills Council for the education of 14 to 16-year-olds; and when the funding is approved. [36019]

  John Healey
  In the financial year 2001–02, none of the Learning and Skills Council's budgets is specifically targeted at 14 to 16-year-olds in school years 10 and 11. £23 million, however, has been allocated for Education Business Link (EBL) activities. These activities will prepare young people for the workplace and adult life by building effective partnerships between schools and business to enhance the delivery of key skills and the national curriculum. EBL funding is aimed at all school children but includes a commitment for all Key Stage 4 pupils to experience at least two weeks' work experience.

  In the financial year 2002–03 funding for EBL has been subsumed into the LSC's Youth Programmes Budget of £2,708.493 million. This funding will be increased before the start of the financial year to include funding for the "Increased Flexibility for 14 to 16-year-olds" programme. The aim of this programme is to support the development activity necessary to extend vocational options for young people at Key Stage 4 of the national curriculum, in line with commitments in the White Paper: "Schools: Achieving Success" (July 2001).

  There are, of course, in addition to 14 to 16-year-olds in years 10 and 11, large numbers of 16-year-olds being educated in FE colleges and school sixth forms. FE college funding for the financial years 2001–02 and
  430W
  2002–03 is included in a number of LSC budgets and school sixth form funding in a separate, new LSC budget for 2002–03.

  The LSC is advised of its funding for each financial year in the preceding December by means of a grant letter. It is informed of any new funding throughout the year as this becomes available.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to converge funding streams for all post-16 provision. [36031]

  John Healey
  We consulted extensively about funding arrangements for post-16 education and training. Planning and implementing these new systems to meet the Government's learning targets is the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council which has published its corporate plan for the period to 2004 and its plans for developing post-16 funding systems for 2003–04 onwards. The council plans to introduce a common funding approach for 2003–04 in line with our consultations in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Progress to date has been good with development of a consistent national funding system this year for work based learning. Progress in 2002–03 will continue with the development of new funding arrangements for further education and the council's assumption of responsibility for school sixth form funding. We are committed to work with the council to further develop funding systems, to ensure that funding follows the learner and facilitating the development of a rational and coherent approach to funding different forms of post-16 provision.

  Excluded Pupils
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of excluded children in authorities with city technology colleges were admitted to such colleges in each of the past three years. [36021]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Course Completion Rates
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the comparative completion rates of on-line learning and those who attend further education colleges. [36029]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information collected does not allow a robust comparison of completion rates of students who study on-line with those who attend further education colleges.

  Further Education (Rural Areas)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact of transportation issues on further education in rural areas. [36030]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In 2001 we have commissioned a study into transport services and support for students in further education. This highlighted the difficulties in travelling to school and college experienced by students including those in rural areas. Some students do suffer from both a lack of transport services and high costs.

  In response to this, we introduced a clause in the current Education Bill in order to revise section 509 of the Education Act 1996 and to clarify the duty on LEAs. This together with new requirements on the Learning and Skills Council and Further Education Institutions will result in more effective transport services and support for students of 16-19. We are also reviewing the transport support available to older students.

  I have also made available an additional £9 million to 76 LEAs from April 2002 to help them to develop and test the most effective approaches to providing transport support in both urban and rural areas.

  Ministerial Trips
  Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in each of the last four years, specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30171]

  Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 707w.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32008]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) departmental expenditure limit (DEL1) for financial year (FY) 2001–02 is £1,018,976,000. FCO projected departmental salary cost2 for FY 2001–02 is £306,594,875 approximately 30.09 per cent. of the overall DEL.
  432W
  1 DEL figure quoted is FCO Gross voted Resource DEL in "Request for Resources 1" (Promoting internationally the interests of the UK and contributing to a strong world community).
  2 Departmental salary cost figure quoted is the combined total of the estimated UK based Paybill spend and the estimated Locally Employed (LE) Paybill spend.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34162]

  Mr. MacShane
  The total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for accountancy services for each of the years in question was as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  267,431

  1998–99

  1,002,628

  1999–2000

  181,720

  2000–01

  384,391

  2001 to date

  69,937

  Lost/stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [34216]

  Mr. MacShane
  A small number of personal effects have been reported lost or stolen from the FCO estate during the last four years. The estimated replacement value of all items is under £50.

  Cayman Islands
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 27 November 2001 the Government of the Cayman Islands has been requested information on taxes by(a) the United States and (b) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [34625]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:

  (a) None.

  (b) None.

  The Cayman Islands signed a tax information exchange agreement with the US Government on 27 November 2001. This does not come into effect until January 2004 for criminal matters, and January 2006 for civil and administrative matters. It will not enable the UK to request tax information from the Cayman Islands.

  Enron
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers in his Department met representatives of Enron between 11 October 1999 and 7 June 2001; what the reasons for the meetings were; and what follow-up action was taken as a result. [34663]
  433W
  Mr. Straw
  There were no official meetings held between FCO Ministers and representatives of Enron during this period.

  English Teaching (Senegal)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests the British Council have received to increase the provision of English teaching in Senegal since 1997; and what response the Government have made. [35014]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council has provided English language training for approximately 300 Senegalese schoolteachers for each of the past three years. This followed a request for increased training from the Senegalese Ministry of Education. The council has also provided training requested by the Ministry of Finance and the Senegalese Youth Council. An English language training centre was established in Dakar in 1997. The centre provides a high quality training programme to fee-paying students.

  The British Council also works in partnership with the BBC and four local radio stations to sponsor the transmission of BBC English in four major cities outside Dakar.

  There is substantial demand for English Language Teaching throughout Francophone Africa. The British Council is examining how this demand might be met with the resources available to it.

  Detainees
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conditions inside prisons in Afghanistan holding UK prisoners. [34936]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Continuing security risks to our staff travelling outside Kabul and limited capacity place practical limits on what activities we are currently able to undertake in Afghanistan.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to assist in providing information to relatives in the UK about the condition of detainees who are British nationals held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [34935]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Following the visit of British officials to the three detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials passed messages from the detainees to their families about their health. Officials are in regular contact with those family representatives who wish to be in contact. The ICRC remains the most appropriate body for passing messages to and from the detainees. The organisation has a special role under the Geneva Conventions to do so. The ICRC also has a presence on the base in Guantanamo Bay and is permitted to visit each detainee privately.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to all places of detention in Afghanistan. [34934]
  434W
  Mr. MacShane
  The ICRC have informed us that they have access to all known places of detention in Afghanistan, both those under the control of the Afghan authorities and those under the control of US forces.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what logistical support is being offered by Her Majesty's Government to the Afghan Government to assist in the detention of prisoners. [34932]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  HMG are not offering any logistical support to the Afghan Government to assist in the detention of prisoners. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development gave her on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 913W—question number 33607.

  Opium Poppy Control Agents
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he anticipates the evaluation of the fungus, pleospora papaveracea, will be communicated to him by the United Nations Drugs Control Project; whether it is being used prior to the communication of the research results; and if he will make a statement. [34896]

  Mr. MacShane
  It is expected that the research, set up by the UNDCP in 1998, to establish the potential of pleospora papaveracea as an opium poppy control agent will not be evaluated until later this year. Pleospora, which is a naturally occurring fungus, has not been used as a means of eradicating poppy cultivation. The research programme ended in the summer of 2001.

  Colombia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the activities of the paramilitary group Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia in relation to human rights abuses in Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [34892]

  Mr. MacShane
  We receive regular reports from the British embassy in Bogota, the Colombian Government, NGOs and others about the murderous activities of the so-called Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). The AUC commits a large proportion of the human rights abuses in Colombia.

  We continue to urge the Colombian Government to strengthen their efforts to combat paramilitaries, including the AUC, and to take concrete action to dismantle such groups by arresting, prosecuting and punishing those involved. I raised this problem with the Colombian Government during a visit to Colombia last October.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the activities of Dyncorp in recruiting mercenaries for action in Colombia in relation to the Government's policy with regard to that country; and if he will make a statement. [34890]
  435W
  Mr. MacShane
  We have made no assessment of the activities in Colombia of Dyncorp, which is a privately owned US company. Central to our policy towards Colombia is the promotion and protection of human rights, and support for the peace process instigated by President Andres Pastrana.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement British embassy officials in Bogota have in protecting and ensuring the safety of UK citizens who are(a) in the Peace Brigades International in Colombia and (b) prepared to try to shield Colombian citizens from violence; and if he will make a statement. [34891]

  Mr. MacShane
  As I made clear in my written answer on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 885W, we strongly support the activities of human rights workers in Colombia, including representatives of Peace Brigades International (PBI). I met a number of human rights defenders, including PBI, during my visit to Colombia last October.

  PBI routinely inform the British embassy in Bogota of their travel and accompanying plans, which the embassy checks against the information available to them to determine if an exceptional risk is involved. Should the embassy have such information they would advise PBI not to travel to that location. Embassy staff have given PBI their personal mobile telephone numbers and are thus available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The embassy has intervened to assist PBI in gaining access to key Colombian officials.

  The Colombian Government have a protection programme for their nationals who are at severe threat from illegal armed groups. The Colombian Government provide bodyguards, protected vehicles and equipment to protect the homes and offices of human rights workers, and trade union leaders.

  Gibraltar
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Gibraltar. [35192]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given by the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on 14 January 2002,Official Report, columns 28-29.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits to Gibraltar by Ministers in his Department since June 2000. [35269]

  Peter Hain
  I visited Gibraltar in September 2001.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official EU observers were admitted to Zimbabwe by(a) 3 February and (b) 5 February; and when each invitation requesting their presence from President Mugabe was received. [35101]
  436W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Four EU representatives, were deployed in Zimbabwe by 3 February, as the first phase of the EU observation mission. Three of these officials were already in Zimbabwe, while the fourth arrived on 3 February. The leader of the EU Mission, Pierre Schori, arrived in Zimbabwe on 10 February but has not yet received accreditation. An official letter to the EU about the deployment of observers from Foreign Minister Mudenge, was sent on 4 February.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 722, on which day the four representatives to which he referred arrived in Zimbabwe. [35228]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Three of the EU representatives have been in Zimbabwe for some time. The fourth arrived on 3 February.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 722, on Zimbabwe, for what reasons British observers are not included in the EU observation mission. [35227]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The selection of members of EU electoral observation teams is the responsibility of the European Commission.

  Burma
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet Tan Sri Razali Ismail to discuss the situation of the Karen people in Burma. [35791]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Tan Sri Razali Ismail is doing an excellent job as the United Nations Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma. The Foreign Secretary met him last year and assured him of our full support for his efforts to promote national reconciliation among all the peoples of Burma. Foreign Office officials remain in regular contact with him.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he plans to take against the Burmese Government over their treatment of the Karen people in Burma. [35790]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK has been at the forefront of the international community's efforts to press for human rights, national reconciliation and democracy in Burma. The EU Common Position on Burma contains measures targeting the military authorities (such as a visa ban and asset freeze on regime members, an arms embargo, a ban on items that can be used for torture and a ban on non-humanitarian assistance). In addition we do not encourage trade, investment or tourism with Burma. In response to concerns over forced labour, the European Commission suspended Burma's Generalised System of Preferences trading privileges in 1997. These measures will remain in place until there is firm evidence of political progress in Burma.
  437W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations his Department has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) others regarding the situation of the Karen people in Burma. [35787]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Records are only available to show the number of letters we receive about Burma issues in general. However the plight of the Karen people is a consistent theme in letters the Foreign Office receives from hon. Members and members of the public. Since January 2001, the Foreign Office has received over 200 letters about Burma from Members of Parliament and over 1,800 letters from members of the public.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made by the United Nations Special Envoy to Burma. [36009]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the beginning of 2001 there has been a modest improvement in the political and human rights situation in Burma. Mr. Razali Ismail is doing an excellent job in promoting national reconciliation in Burma.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation of refugees who have left Burma and set up camp in Sangklaburi, Thailand. [35789]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The closest camp to Sangklaburi is Ban Don Yang. It hosts around 3,900 refugees. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who provide assistance to the refugees there believe the conditions are generally satisfactory, though not perfect as it is quite isolated and very close to the border. Foreign diplomatic staff including from the British embassy in Bangkok also visit the camp.

  DfID has significantly increased UK funding this year for the UN High Commission for Refugees, the International Commission for the Red Cross and the Burmese Border Consortium for their work with Burmese refugees.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Karen, (b) Karenni and (c) Shan people are estimated to have left Burma following their treatment by the Burmese military. [35788]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Just over 125,000 Burmese refugees live in camps on the Thai/Burmese border, nearly all of whom are from Karen and Karenni states, although exact figures on ethnic background are not kept. In addition there are a large number of Burmese migrant workers in Thailand. Again exact figures are not known, but estimates range form 500,000 to 2 million.

  Common Agricultural Policy Budget
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate has been made of the annual cost to the CAP budget of paying to(a) Poland and (b) the other accession candidate countries, one-quarter of the value of direct payments normally made to EU farmers. [35320]

  Peter Hain
  The Commission recently presented a framework paper for financing EU enlargement up to 2006. The framework includes a proposal to phase-in direct payments for new member states at a starting level of 25 per cent. in 2004 rising to 35 per cent. in 2006. For the period 2004–06, the Commission estimate the cost of this to be euro 2.6 billion for up to 10 new member states. No estimate of the cost for individual member states is given.

  Heads of State (Visits)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits to the United Kingdom, other than to Northern Ireland, have been carried out by the President of the Irish Republic since 1997; and how they were categorised. [35332]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since 1997 the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, has carried out eight working visits to the UK, other than to Northern Ireland. She has also carried out a number of private visits, on which the FCO does not keep records.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how visits by foreign heads of state are categorised; who decides this; and what criteria are applied. [35341]

  Mr. MacShane
  Visits by foreign heads of state are categorised as State, Guest of Government, Working or Private.

  State visits are at the invitation of Her Majesty the Queen, on the advice of the Royal Visits committee. Guest of Government visits would usually be at the invitation of the Prime Minister, on advice from an inter-departmental visits committee. Working or private visits take place on the initiative of the visitors or at the invitation of third parties.

  Ian Stillman
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact his consular officials have had with Ian Stillman; and on what dates. [35861]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Mr. Stillman was visited by consular officials on 5 September 2000, 5 December 2000, 21 February 2001, 16 July 2001 and 5 September 2001. He was due to be visited on 19 December 2001, but was having dental treatment in Shimla. The next visit is due on 19 March.
  439W
  Consular staff in New Delhi and London have been in frequent contact with Mr. Stillman's family and lawyer. My noble Friend Baroness Amos met the family on 5 February 2002.

  Visitor Visas
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were issued with visit visas in(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Bangladesh, (d) Ghana, (e) Nigeria, (f) Malaysia, (g) Jamaica, (h) Zimbabwe and (i) Kenya in 2001. [35549]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Non-settlement visas issued in the posts mentioned during 2001 (the majority of which were made by visitors) were as follows:

  Number

  India

  177,756

  Pakistan

  76,507

  Bangladesh

  15,712

  Ghana

  31,604

  Nigeria

  77,861

  Malaysia

  1,745

  Jamaica

  3,139

  Zimbabwe

  11,926

  Kenya

  19,870

  1 To November 2001

  European Union
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made concerning reforming the decision making process of the European Union. [35638]

  Peter Hain
  The Government are in favour of reform which makes the EU more efficient and effective in delivering the benefits citizens expect. The Convention on the Future of Europe, which starts on 28 February, will begin a debate on how best to achieve these goals. The Government have not sought to prejudge the work of the Convention by making detailed representations at this stage.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals on the future distribution of competences between the European Union and its member states the Minister for Europe, in his role as the Government's representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe, will be making to the Convention on the Future of Europe; and if he will make a statement. [35850]

  Peter Hain
  I welcome the opportunity the Convention on the Future of Europe gives us to look at who does what. The complexity of the present situation is undesirable. We will work towards a solution which gives us flexibility and transparency.

  European Single Sky
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government will be making to the European Council at Barcelona on the creation of the single sky in Europe; what effect they will have on Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [35852]
  440W
  Peter Hain
  The Lisbon strategy calls for completion of the Single European Sky by 2004. Proposals designed to achieve this are currently under negotiation. The Spanish Presidency has not yet made clear whether this issue will be discussed at the Barcelona European Council. The UK is committed to Single Sky. It offers the best route to overcoming delays and congestion caused by the structural problems in Europe's Air Traffic Management (ATM) system. It will also improve safety, and provide the necessary framework for future air traffic growth.

  With regard to the effect of these proposals on Gibraltar, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 1 November 2001, Official Report, column 811W. There have been no further discussions with Spain on this matter.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on United Nations Security Council resolution 1291 (2000) in respect of the orderly withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in accordance with the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement; when it is anticipated all foreign troops will leave; and if he will make a statement. [35241]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since the adoption of resolution 1291 Namibia has withdrawn all its troops from the DRC. All other foreign parties to the conflict have withdrawn some of their forces. We welcome these withdrawals. But we will continue to press all parties to withdraw all their troops in line with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

  Crown Dependencies
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the model Order in Council that his Department has developed for the purpose of criminalising terrorism financing in the Crown Dependencies; and if he will make a statement. [34624]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  All the Crown Dependencies, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, already have their own strong anti-money laundering legislation. United Kingdom legislation against terrorism financing does not extend to the Crown Dependencies; they are all, however, preparing further domestic anti-terrorism legislation, which includes new provisions to counteract terrorism financing.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [31778]
  441W
  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1129-30W.

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [33203]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been no inward or external secondments between the listed companies and this Department in any of the years specified.

  Cabinet Papers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will introduce proposals to amend restrictions on the timing of the release of Cabinet papers. [33123]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The release of Cabinet papers which have been preserved as public records of historical interest is subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 as amended by the Public Records Act 1967. There are no current proposals to amend these provisions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the total costs paid to(a) the liquidators of BCCI and (b) their legal advisers since 5 July 1991. [13639]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest report and accounts prepared by the liquidators and submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry show that the total of remuneration drawn by the liquidators in the period from 5 July 1991 to 15 January was US$267 million. The total paid in respect of legal fees in that period was US$145 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the payment of Insolvency Service fees by the liquidators of BCCI and the services provided by the Insolvency Service in return for that payment to the English creditors. [31049]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest report and accounts prepared by the liquidators and provided to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and 'Industry, show that, in the period 5 July to 15 January 2001 a total of US$13.2 million was paid in fees to the Insolvency Service. Regulations and Fees Orders determined the rates at which these fees were charged on moneys paid into the Insolvency Services Account. Such fees are appropriated in aid of the Department's vote.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each year since 1997, what is the(a) average and (b) upper decile time taken to determine (i) an export licence and (ii) a 680 application. [25387]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The processing of Form 680 applications for the advance approval for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

  The Export Control Organisation (ECO) sets out the Government's commitment to exporters in a Service and Performance Code (available on its website (www.dti.gov.uk/export.control). Where, as in almost all cases, it is necessary for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) application to be circulated to other Government Departments the aim is to provide a response to 70 per cent. of cases within 20 working days, except in special circumstances. Details of performance in processing SIEL applications against the target are published in the Government's annual report on strategic export controls, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Prior to the introduction of the ECO's current computer database during 1999, information on the average time taken to process a SIEL application was not recorded. It would therefore entail disproportionate cost to establish the average and upper decile time taken to process a SIEL application between 1997 and 1999.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 10 May 2001, Official Report, columns 305-06W, for details of the average time taken to process a SIEL application in 2000. The upper decile time taken to process a SIEL application in 2000 was 53 working days.

  The average time taken in working days to process a SIEL application whose processing was completed in 2001 is as follows:

  Working days

  Mode

  13

  Median

  18

  Mean

  31

  Upper decile

  59

  Any comparison of the average and upper decile time taken to process a SIEL application between 2000 and 2001 would not provide for an accurate reflection of the Government's performance, given the Export Control Organisation's success in finalising a number of long standing cases during 2001, which are not reflected in previous years' figures. The figures do not take account of periods during which applications were referred back to exporters for further information. These occur, for example, when the nature or end user of the goods requires further clarification.

  It would entail disproportionate cost to establish the average and upper decile time taken to process all Open Individual Export Licence applications since 1997.
  443W
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is the procedure of officials in her Department to advise companies who have applied for export licences that are likely to be refused, to withdraw the licence application prior to formal refusal. [35031]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There are no procedures in place to advise companies to withdraw licence applications prior to a refusal decision being made.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage per year of export licence applications for dual use goods were circulated to other Departments for consultation, broken down by the export categories and countries of destination for the export licence applications in the last 12 months. [32272]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Where items are deemed licensable and not covered by an Open General Licence, all export licence applications for dual use items are circulated to other Government Departments for consultation. The number of export licence applications covering dual use items, together with their description or rating, is published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls.

  The 2001 annual report will be published as soon as possible.

  Pakistan Ordnance Factories
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the agreements between Royal Ordnance and Pakistan Ordnance Factories prior to 1987 that permitted POF to produce APFSDS ammunition under licensed production in Pakistan; and what the state of these licensed production agreements is; [32279]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the licensed production agreements negotiated between Royal Ordnance and Pakistan Ordnance Factories from 1975 to 1987. [32271]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It would be inappropriate to comment on any such agreement entered into during the time of a previous Administration. In any case this is a matter between Royal Ordnance and Pakistan Ordnance Factories.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent requests she has received from Pakistan Ordnance Factories for permission to export munitions, manufactured under licensed production agreements agreed with Royal Ordnance prior to 1987, to third countries. [32278]

  Nigel Griffiths
  An export licence is not required from the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation to export items from Pakistan to a third country.

  Broadband
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the RDA broadband fund has been allocated; which RDAs have published their broadband strategy; and which RDAs have implemented their strategies. [35441]
  444W
  Mr. Alexander
  The UK broadband fund has been allocated to the English Regional Development Agencies and the devolved Administrations on the basis of their need for broadband coverage. We announced allocations on 9 October 2001. RDAs will publish their corporate plans which will set out their aims, objectives, operations and key performance targets. The decision on whether or not to publish their broadband strategies is a matter for each RDA.

  Debt Management Companies
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to review the regulation of fees and commission charged by debt management companies. [35713]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In December the Director General of Fair Trading issued guidelines to debt management companies to ensure they deal fairly and openly with consumers. The guidelines require consumers to be given adequate and clear information on cost and the service provided before they enter into a contract.

  Company Directors (Remuneration)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on levels of remuneration for company directors. [35540]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 19 October 2001,Official Report, column 1376W.

  Post Offices
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Consignia about the impact on rural and urban communities of their intention to close post offices. [35635]

  Mr. Alexander
  None. We welcome the terms negotiated between Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters in relation to the urban network. The Government's formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closures of rural post offices remains in place.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices there are in Wales; how many sub-post offices have been closed since May 1997; and if she will make a statement. [35620]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 965W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have closed in Surrey in each of the past five years. [35811]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that data on the post office network are not held on a county basis.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will present proposals regarding the urban post office network. [35300]
  445W
  Mr. Alexander
  Detailed discussion continues on the programme to restructure the urban post office network.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what options she is assessing for transitional financial assistance to the rural post office network; when she will announce a decision; and if she will make a statement. [35877]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 February 2000]: I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 560W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of take-up of the £2 million rural post office scheme; and what action she is taking to increase take-up. [35299]

  Mr. Alexander
  To date there have been over 500 requests for further information about the £2 million fund made available by Government to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or re-open post office facilities in rural areas. Also to date, 29 completed applications out of the 139 forms requested have been received by Post Office Ltd. and seven initiatives have been allocated funding. The scheme is promoted by rural transfer advisers from Post Office Ltd.

  Television Sets
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs there were in the UK in each of the last five years in the manufacture of small and medium sized television sets. [34909]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Figures for the number of jobs in the UK in the manufacture of TV's are not available, though the British Radio and Electrical Equipment Manufacturers Association maintain data on the UK Consumer Electronics sector as a whole. Sales of high value, large screen and widescreen TV's are the main growth area of the industry, however, with 4.76 million sold in 2000 against 3.6 million in 1999, presenting manufacturers with the opportunity to move their UK production up the value chain.

  Working Hours
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to help people working longer than the 48 hour working week; and if she will make a statement. [35683]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have introduced the Working Time Regulations, which provide that no worker (excluding those in the transport and offshore sectors, sea fishing and junior doctors) may be required to work beyond 48 hours a week on average.

  The Government are also encouraging the greater provision of flexible working opportunities which can help ease the pressure on employees to work long hours. The Government's work-life balance campaign seeks to persuade companies to introduce ways of working which meet the needs of the business and its customers while simultaneously improving the work-life balance of their employees. The Government are also particularly looking to facilitate discussion between employers and parents to consider flexible working arrangements that suit them
  446W
  both. It is introducing a new right, to come into force in April 2003, for parents of children aged under six, or under-18 for parents of disabled children, to request flexible working and to have those requests seriously considered by their employers.

  Employment Status Consultation Paper
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government's consultation paper on employment status is due to be published; and if she will make a statement. [35305]

  Alan Johnson
  We are just beginning a review of employment status in relation to statutory employment rights. As part of this review, we are holding initial discussions with stakeholders, which will inform a discussion document, which we intend to publish in late spring.

  Post Office Investment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a detailed breakdown of the £750 million the Government have invested in the Post Office, referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 252. [35201]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column 409W. In addition, £480 million has been invested by Government in the Horizon programme to automate the entire post office network.

  Your Guide
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial contribution from the Scottish Executive is being sought prior to rolling-out the "Your Guide" system in Scotland. [35735]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 6 February 2002, Official Report, column 967W. Should the evaluation of the pilot "Your Guide" system, and the additional work on the costs and benefits of this, indicate that a national service should be rolled out, then we will work with all of the devolved Administrations to determine the form, content and funding of any future "Your Guide" service.

  Consignia
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to make a decision regarding the dividend taken from Consignia this year; and what her policy on Consignia dividends is. [35480]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I would expect to take a decision on dividends after the end of the current financial year. The policy on dividends is set out in the White Paper, "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century".

  British Trade International
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to change the departmental expenditure limit of British Trade International for 2001–02. [36524]

  Ms Hewitt
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, British Trade International's Resource DEL will be increased by £175,000 from £88,818,000 to £88,993,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  175

  New DEL

  88,993

  of which:

  Voted

  88,993

  Non-voted

  0

  Capital

  Change

  0

  New DEL

  248

  of which:

  Voted

  248

  Non-voted

  0

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a transfer of £175;000 in resources from the Department of Trade and Industry to British Trade International in respect of two Rover Task Force projects in the west midlands.

  Ofgem
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to change the departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limits for her Department and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. [36525]

  Ms Hewitt
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the Department of Trade and Industry DEL will be increased by £69,043,000 from£4,766,430,000 to £4,835,473,000 and the Administration Costs limit will be reduced by £23,020,000 from £435,345,000 to £412,325,000. This includes the impact on the DTI DEL of the Machinery of Government transfers from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which were still under consideration when the announcement was made regarding the Winter Supplementaries of both Departments.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  50,539

  New DEL

  4,022,145

  of which:

  Voted

  895,145

  Non-voted

  3,127,000

  Capital

  Change

  18,504

  448W

  £000

  New DEL

  813,328

  of which:

  Voted

  -148,330

  Non-voted

  961,658

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) the transfer of £40,300,000 of non-Voted DEL to reflect Machinery of Government transfers from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in respect of Regional Development Agencies;

  (ii) to reflect the reclassification of the Private Finance Initiative Contract relating to the National Physical Laboratory as on-balance sheet, by transferring £11,220,000 to capital;

  (iii) to transfer £1,506,000 to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for the acquisition and reclamation of strategically sited land in furtherance of the Rover Task Force diversity, modernisation and regeneration objectives;

  (iv) to reclassify from capital £395,000 for the Rover Task Force Modernisation and Diversification Projects (subheads U3 and A2), of which £175,000 will be transferred to British Trade International in connection with Autosport International and Overseas Links;

  (v) to record £497,531,000 of voted current receipts from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and to increase non-voted resource expenditure by an equivalent amount to reflect revised agreement on the sums to be recorded as a Machinery of Government transfer related to Regional Development Agencies;

  (vi) to reclassify £650,000 from voted to non-voted DEL to reflect the funding of Regional Development Agencies via grant in aid following the above Machinery of Government changes;

  (vii) to reclassify £3,010,000 from voted to non-voted DEL in connection with the funding via Regional Development Agencies of innovative schemes to establish broadband networks;

  (viii) to reclassify £441,000 from voted to non-voted DEL in connection with the funding via Regional Development Agencies of regional manufacturing centres;

  (ix) to reclassify £3,218,000 from voted to non-voted DEL in connection with the funding via Regional Development Agencies of Regional Supply Offices;

  (x) to transfer £250,000 to the devolved Administration of Scotland in connection with the funding of innovative schemes to establish broadband networks;

  (xi) to transfer £250,000 from the devolved Administration of Scotland as indemnity for costs incurred by administrators of Atlantic Telecom Group plc for costs of continuing provision of telephone services;

  (xii) to increase by £900,000 the non-Voted resource DEL of Postwatch to be offset by an equivalent increase in voted licence fee receipts;

  449W

  (xiii) to transfer an additional £257,000 in administration costs and £311,000 in resource (of which £50,000 to be vired to administration to reflect funding via ACAS) from the Department for Education and Skills for publicity and evaluation in relation to the Work Life Balance project to reflect Machinery of Government transfers;

  (xiv) to utilise £105,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement transferred from the Department for Education and Skills for publicity and evaluation in relation to the Work Life Balance project to reflect Machinery of Government transfers

  (xv) to transfer £100,000 from the Home Office in relation to the Work Life Balance project to reflect Machinery of Government transfers;

  (xvi) to transfer £11,000 in administration costs from the Home Office for the administration of the Easter and British summer time; Sunday trading, street markets and Chartered Fairs Projects to reflect Machinery of Government Transfers;

  (xvii) to transfer from capital £5,440,000 in connection with British Trade International to fund IT development under the ELGAR PFI contract;

  (xviii) to reclassify from capital £471,000 to fund Claims Handling in the Redundancy Payments Service system upgrade;

  (xix) to transfer £50,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department in support of the Debt Advice Project;

  (xx) to utilise £3,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase the External Financing Limit of British Coal Corporation to provide for compensation payments to dismissed miners.

  RfR2

  (i) to take up £5,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund Higher Education Innovation Fund projects;

  (ii) to take up £4,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund Exploitation of Discoveries at Public Sector Research Establishments;

  (iii) to take up £2,884,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non-voted expenditure of the Medical Research Council;

  (iv) to take up £2,350,000 of the non-voted Science Departmental Unallocated Provision to increase non-voted expenditure of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council;

  (v) to take up £2,862,000 of the Science non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision to increase non-voted expenditure of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;

  (vi) to transfer £334,000 of capital from the Synchrotron Radiation Source project to fund additional non-voted expenditure of £334,000 to the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;

  450W

  (vii) to take up £782,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund Science Enterprise Challenge projects;

  (viii) to take up £146,000 of the Science non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision for funding of Foresight LINK Awards.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  RfR1

  (i) to reclassify £2,175,000 and make a transfer of this amount to the Department for Education and Skills for MG Rover training;

  (ii) to reflect the reclassification of the Private Finance Initiative Contract relating to the National Physical Laboratory as on-balance sheet, by transferring £11,220,000 from resource;

  (iii) to reclassify to resource £395,000 for the Rover Task Force Modernisation and Diversification Projects;

  (iv) to record £636,558,000 of capital receipts from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and to increase non-voted resource expenditure by an equivalent amount to reflect revised agreement on the sums to be recorded as a Machinery of Government transfer related to Regional Development Agencies;

  (v) to transfer £57,000 from the Department for Education and Skills for publicity and evaluation in relation to the Work Life Balance project to reflect Machinery of Government transfers;

  (vi) to transfer to administration £5,440,000 in connection with British Trade International to fund IT development under the ELGAR PFI contract;

  (vii) to reclassify to administration £471,000 to fund Claims Handling in the Redundancy Payments Service system upgrade;

  (viii) to utilise £435,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Capital Modernisation Fund for the Innovative Clusters Fund for the regions, and reclassify to reflect funding via Regional Development Agencies.

  RfR2

  (i) increases in non-Voted expenditure of £3,000,000 by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, funded by a £3,000,000 reduction in voted provision for the Synchrotron Radiation Source project;

  (ii) to take up £6,063,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement from underspends on Joint Infrastructure Fund projects to fund projects under the Science Research Investment Fund;

  (iii) to take up £8,044,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non-voted expenditure by the Medical Research Council;

  (iv) to take up £1,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non-voted expenditure by the Natural Environment Research Council;

  451W

  (v) to transfer £334,000 from the Synchrotron Radiation Source project to fund additional resource expenditure of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;

  Also, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the departmental expenditure limit for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets will be increased by £1,000 from £1,316,000 to £1,317,000. The Administration Costs Limit will increase by £1,220,000 from £36,130,000 to £37,350,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  1

  New DEL

  352

  of which:

  Voted

  352

  Non-voted

  0

  Capital

  Change

  0

  New DEL

  965

  of which:

  Voted

  965

  Non-voted

  —

  All of the above increases will either be offset by interdepartmental transfers, take-up of End-Year Flexibility or use of Departmental Unallocated Provisions and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Operator

  Blocks

  Work programme (drilling only)

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  NX92, NX93, NY02, NY03

  One firm well

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  NT26, NT36

  One firm well

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  NS65, NS75

  One firm well

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  SK21, SK22

  One firm well

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  SJ94

  One drill-or-drop well

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  SJ18

  One drill-or-drop well

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  SE22

  One drill-or-drop well

  Alkane Energy UK Ltd.

  S078, S079

  One drill-or-drop well

  Sterling Resources (UK) Ltd.

  SU42

  One drill-or-drop well

  Sonorex Oil and Gas Ltd.

  ST47, ST48

  One drill-or-drop well

  Northern Petroleum (GB) Ltd.

  TQ75, TQ85, TQ95, TR05

  One drill-or-drop well

  Black Rock Resources (UK) Ltd.

  SZ49, SZ59

  One drill-or-drop well

  Stratagas plc

  SE74

  Three drill-or-drop CBM wells

  Stratagas plc

  SJ82, SJ91, SJ92, SK11, SK02, SK12, SK21

  Three drill-or-drop CBM wells and a drill-or-drop Gob Gas well

  Stratagas plc

  SJ48

  Three drill-or-drop CBM wells

  Stratagas plc

  SN40

  Three drill-or-drop CBM wells

  Stag Energy Ltd.

  SK65, SK66

  One drill-or-drop well

  Warwick Energy Exploration and Production Ltd.

  SU40, SU30

  One drill-or-drop well

  Warwick Energy Exploration and Production Ltd.

  SE68, SE78, SE88, SE98

  Two drill-or-drop wells

  Archean Energy (UK) Ltd.

  TQ22, TQ32

  One drill-or-drop well

  Archean Energy (UK) Ltd.

  SJ28, SJ29, SJ38, SJ39

  One drill-or-drop well

  Coalbed Methane Ltd.

  NS76, NS77

  One drill-or-drop well

  Onshore Licences
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 609W, on petroleum licensing, what decisions she has made on onshore licence awards. [36754]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have decided to offer 22 Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences. In addition, I will offer another two licences provided that I am satisfied by further information yet to be supplied by the applicants.

  These licences cover areas the length and breadth of the country, and include acreage never previously considered for oil and gas exploration. It is encouraging to see licences going to new applicants from both the UK and overseas—there are British, Italian, Canadian and Australian companies here, as operators or as partners. The high level of interest in this Round shows that the UK's onshore oil and gas industry has a strong future.

  It is particularly good to be able to offer 14 licences to companies concentrating on gas from coal mines, offering the potential for new activity in former mining communities and helping to bring new activity and jobs to former mining areas, while contributing to the UK's energy supply, and helping to meet the Government's Kyoto targets by preventing unnecessary emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The other 10 licences show that conventional oil and gas is not being overlooked and continues to attract a high level of interest itself.

  The operators on each licence, with the blocks to be covered and a brief resume of the drilling portion of the Work Programme are as follows:

  Fire Sprinklers
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations exist to limit the use of fire sprinklers in listed buildings. [33509]

  Ms Keeble: I have been asked to reply.

  Listed building consent is required to alter a listed building in any way that would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. Listed building controls extend to all works, both external and internal, that would affect a building's special interest.

  It is for local planning authorities in the first instance to decide whether consent is required in any particular case, including for works involving the installation of fire sprinklers. In appropriate cases, conditions may be attached to the grant of listed building consent requiring the preservation of particular features.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the(a) costs of and (b) income from fees charged for family visitor appeals. [27872]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is as follows:

  (a) The cost to the Immigration Appellate authorities of family visitor appeals in the first six months of this financial year was £883,000.

  (b) The net income from fees charged for family visitor appeals in the first six months of this financial year was £73,500.

  Police Response Times
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision exists to inspect the standards on telephone response times in the Metropolitan police. [12539]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the service level for answering 999 emergency calls is measured at 15 minute intervals throughout the day. This is used to identify patterns and establish the Metropolitan Police Service's (MPS) call handling requirements.

  Supervising officers dip-sample telephone calls so that quality is assured and to ensure adherence to the MPS' policies, practices and procedures. This also ensures that calls are answered within a reasonable time.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was;
  454W
  how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31046]
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. To provide the hon. Member with a full answer will incur disproportionate cost. I can however provide information detailing total spend on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years and also the number of consultancy firms used by my Department over this period. The aforementioned information is as follows:

  Total spend on private finance initiative (PFI) consultants

  £

  1998

  103,563

  1999

  89,473

  2000

  2,926,936

  2001

  7,372,187

  Number of consultancy firms used by the Home Department on PFI projects

  Number

  1998

  1

  1999

  2

  2000

  4

  2001

  5

  The increase in expenditure is largely due to two projects, firstly the setting up of the Criminal Records Bureau and secondly various business change services relating to the Immigration and Nationality Department's Casework Programme to enable the improvement of case management.

  Immigration Statistics
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion and number of immigration applications for(a) work permit holders, (b) people with UK ancestry, (c) EEA nationals and their families, (d) spouses, (e) fianceéand fianceés and (f) asylum seekers were decided upon in under (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) four months, (iv) six months, (v) 12 months and (vi) 18 months in each of the last five years; and what figures he predicts for the next two years. [30996]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not readily available.

  There are currently no published data for the individual categories of immigration applications. However, our aim is to decide all straightforward applications within three weeks. Owing 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 eight weeks to decide an application. We are working to reduce this to three weeks as soon as possible. Information on expected processing times for straightforward cases is provided to applicants on the Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND) website at http://194.203.40.90/default.asp?PageId=113.
  455W
  The requested information on asylum applications is also not readily available; however the tables show the average time taken from an asylum application to an initial decision, for initial decisions made in each year.

  Corresponding calendar year information for 2000 and for 2001 is not available.

  Average time (in months) to initial decision1,2,4

  Year of decision

  Months

  19973

  22

  19983

  17

  19993,5

  35

  October 2000 to September 20016,7

  14

  1 Excluding dependants

  2 Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded

  3 Based on data from Refugee Index

  4 The average length of time (in months) is calculated from date application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the year in which the decisions were made

  5 As at the end of December 1999, excluding cases waiting an initial decision

  6 Based on data from A-CID (Asylum Cases Information Database)

  7 Provisional figures

  I regret that information on predicted processing times for the next two years is not available.

  Metropolitan Police
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police, (b) beat and (c) traffic officers there were in the Metropolitan police in each of the past 10 years; and what the (i) total, (ii) beat policing and (iii) traffic policing budget was in each of those years. [31020]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collect information on the number of officers in different functions. Information on the Metropolitan police force is set out in the table. Information before 1996–97 is not available.

  Total Police officers

  Patrol, or foot/car/beat patrol1

  Traffic1

  1996–97

  26,447

  12,307

  922

  1997–98

  26,094

  12,159

  823

  1998–99

  25,956

  11,716

  782

  1999–2000

  25,462

  12,312

  824

  2000–01

  24,935

  10,984

  686

  1 Definitions of patrol and traffic officers changed in 1999–2000

  Note:

  The Metropolitan police was affected by boundary changes on 1 April 2000. The effect of this was incorporated into the funding formula and the overall transfer between the forces involved was in terms of financial resources, not of officers. Because it is for police authorities and Chief Constables to decide how resources are utilised, it is not possible to say what proportion of the reduction in Metropolitan police strength between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 relates to boundary changes.

  I am informed by the Commissioner that budgets have not been allocated on a functional basis that would allow identification against beat and traffic policing. The Commissioner has provided the information about net revenue budgets set out in the table.
  456W

  £000

  Net revenue budget

  1991–92

  1,415,167

  1992–93

  1,523,043

  1993–94

  1,597,684

  1994–95

  1,616,511

  1995–96

  1,632,663

  1996–97

  1,667,330

  1997–98

  1,707,553

  1998–99

  1,778,238

  1999–2000

  1,846,564

  2000–01

  1,842,433

  2001–02

  2,040,100

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many of his Department's PFI contracts Arthur Andersen has been an adviser; and if he will make a statement. [31721]

  Angela Eagle
  From the information available, there are no instances in this Department where Arthur Andersen has been used as an adviser on a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in connection with Crown court sentencing were referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in each of the last two years; and how many of them resulted in a quashing or variation of sentence. [32478]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The required information is as follows:

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  1 April to 31 December 2001*

  Crown court sentence referrals

  3

  2

  Quashed or varied

  2

  1

  Waiting to be heard

  1

  1

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures the Criminal Cases Review Commission uses to prioritise its Crown court conviction case load. [32488]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has a priority-ranking group that reviews all applications for priority.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what quotas there are for the numbers of cases which may be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in any year. [32476]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are no quotas on the number of cases which may be referred to the Court of Appeal in any year by the Commission.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority is given by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the crown court conviction cases of dead people. [32495]
  457W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has a priority-ranking group that reviews all applications for priority. Cases involving applicants in custody are generally assigned higher priority than those in which applicants are at liberty or deceased, and are reviewed in date order of receipt.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each of the last two years concerned sentences passed in the magistrates' courts. [32473]

  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 are available. Of 31 applications concerning summary convictions in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001, one was a sentence only application.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Criminal Cases Review Commission criteria are for fast-tracking Crown court conviction cases. [32490]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Cases involving applicants in custody are generally assigned higher priority than those in which applicants are at liberty or deceased, and are reviewed in date order of receipt. Priority may be given to cases in which the health of applicants or witnesses is a significant factor; or there is serious risk of deterioration of evidence, or to cases of special importance to the criminal justice system. Also once they have been identified, cases which offer little or no new evidence or argument and can be reviewed with modest caseworker effort are undertaken without further delay.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role the Commissioners of the Criminal Cases Review Commission play in crown court conviction case reviews. [32499]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Commission members carry out some case reviews and are responsible for all final case decisions.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the crown court conviction cases of applicants dead at the time of application were fast-tracked by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in(a) 2002 and (b) 2001; and what proportion these represented all fast-tracked cases in each of those years. [32496]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  None out of 25 cases in the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, and one out of 17 cases in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001 (approximately 6 per cent).

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission concerned crown court sentences in each of the last two years; and what proportion this is of all applications of all kinds. [32477]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not collect routinely the statistics requested, and they could be obtained only at 458W
  disproportionate cost. However following the introduction of an electronic case database from 1 April 2001 recent data are available.
  In the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001, 616 applications were received. 51 of these (just over 8 per cent. of the total) were sentence only applications.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Criminal Cases Review Commission time was spent in the last two years on(a) the cases of people dead at the time of application,(b) the cases of people dead at the time of referral,(c) magistrates court conviction cases, (d) magistrates court sentencing cases and (e) Crown court sentencing cases. [32482]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not measure these time elements and this question could only be answered at disproportionate cost. However as few cases involve the deceased, the proportion of time spent on them is small.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many magistrates court conviction cases were referred to the Crown court in each of the last two years; and how many resulted in a quashed conviction. [32472]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred one case to the Crown court in the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001. This conviction was quashed. In the period 1 April to December 2001, three cases were referred and are awaiting judgment.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role public opinion plays in the Criminal Cases Review Commission criteria for prioritising Crown court conviction cases. [32489]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Commission's policies on case priority setting have been developed with advice and comment from potential applicants, applicants and their representatives, courts of appeal, the Court of Appeal, the criminal justice system and its agencies and the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Northern Ireland.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission processes all magistrates court sentencing cases. [32479]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Yes, the Criminal Cases Review Commission does process all magistrates court sentencing cases.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Criminal Cases Review Commission Crown court conviction cases are fast-tracked. [32491]

  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 are available. The Criminal Cases Review Commission received 66 requests for priority during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001. 17 requests (26 per cent) were granted. Cases identified as requiring only modest caseworker effort were also processed faster.
  459W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the numbers of case review managers at the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [32500]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Home Secretary has provided funding to meet the Criminal Cases Review Commission's proposals in relation to its increasing numbers of case review managers. The commission considers that it has had adequate funding for the 2001–02 financial year, and is now preparing its annual business plan for 2002–03.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants about crown court convictions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission(a) in 2002 and (b) 2001 were dead at the time of the application; and what proportion of the total applications they represented. [32493]

  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 are available.

  In the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001, one application out of 616 was on behalf of a deceased person.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of Crown court convictions have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each of the last two years; in each year how many were dealt with fully; how many were in process of review at the end of that year; and how many there were upon which work had not commenced. [32486]

  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 are available.

  The tabulation statistics include convictions in magistrates' courts and these constituted about 6 per cent. for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Cases received

  799

  616

  Completed

  1,110

  881

  Under review

  492

  375

  Awaiting review

  576

  422

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants in Crown court conviction cases whose cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission were dead at the time of referral; and what percentage of total conviction referrals were represented by referrals of the cases of the dead in the last 12 months. [32494]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There have been eight cases concerning those deceased at the time of referral, and 3 per cent. (one out of 30 referrals) during the last 12 months.
  460W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission has formal discussions with the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on(a) policy and(b) jurisprudence; and which personnel from each organization take part in them. [32475]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  No formal discussions on either subject have taken place.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time(a) in 2002 and(b) 2001 from application to the issue of a referral or a minded-to-refuse letter for fast-tracked Crown court conviction cases. [32492]

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

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission processes all applications which concern Crown court sentences. [32470]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Yes, the Criminal Cases Review Commission processes all applications concerning Crown court sentences.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the time taken for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to process a Crown court conviction case to a conclusion is sufficiently short, in every case, to remedy miscarriages of justice expeditiously. [32498]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Following consultation, the commission has introduced criteria for prioritising applications and screening that allows less complex cases to be completed without delay. A backlog of accumulated cases has precluded the commission from processing other applications as speedily as would be ideal. Increased resources have been made available to the commission and the backlog has decreased considerably over the last two years and continues to do so. The number of cases under review and awaiting review peaked in 1999, since when it has been halved. The commission is committed to processing all applications with due regard to efficiency and quality.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will launch a campaign to inform British nationals that they will be prosecuted for child sex crimes committed overseas; and if he will make a statement. [33019]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are keen to do all we can to protect the public, especially children, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, from sex offenders. This is why jurisdiction was extended by virtue of Part Two of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to allow prosecution in the United Kingdom's courts for sex offences committed by British nationals and residents abroad against children. This allows us to prosecute such cases in this country when we need to.

  However, we consider it preferable wherever possible for our citizens to face trial in the country where the alleged offence was committed. That is because it is

  461W
  extremely difficult for the prosecuting authorities in the United Kingdom to gather sufficient evidence about an offence which took place in another country for a successful prosecution. In these circumstances, an information campaign of the kind suggested would not be appropriate. However, we will take every opportunity to warn people that they could be prosecuted in the United Kingdom for sex offences committed abroad.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department(a) is giving and (b) will give in future years to the schemes for young offenders run by the Army Cadet Force leadership as outreach. [33304]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Youth Justice Board committed £60,000 to Outreach for 2000–01 and the Home Office £60,000 for 2001–02. This funding supports the project's personal development training for 12 to 14-year-olds who are considered to be at risk of involvement in crime or not properly engaged in formal education. It includes adventure pursuit activities and team building exercises in conjunction with the Army Cadet Force.

  Further Home Office funding is being considered, subject to the outcome of a current independent evaluation of the project's progress.

  Ministerial Briefing Unit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the functions, establishment and annual budget of the proposed Ministerial Briefing Unit; and if he will make a statement. [32626]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Work on the Ministerial Briefing Unit in the Home Office was commissioned in 2001 and the unit came into existence on Monday 28 January 2002. Its functions are to improve the quality of Home Office information made publicly available by providing research facilities and background briefing for the Home Secretary, his ministerial team and senior officials undertaking activity outside the Department on current and emerging topics of concern.

  The extra annual staff costs, including overheads, of the unit are currently £60,000. In addition, a Higher Executive Officer or Executive Officer (HEO/EO) is being recruited.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the proposed asylum accommodation centres will be constructed using the Private Finance Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [33698]

  Angela Eagle
  Proposed asylum accommodation centres will not be developed using the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The Home Office has considered a number of procurement strategies for the delivery of these projects and determined that the PFI route was not appropriate in view of the urgent nature of the programme.
  462W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations he will undertake with(a) local authorities, (b) providers of local services and (c) members of the local community before reaching a decision on the use of Throckmorton airfield as the site of a proposed asylum accommodation centre; [33061]

  (2) if he intends to apply the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to the development of the proposed asylum accommodation centres; and if he will make a statement; [33064]

  (3) if he will submit to Wychavon district council a full environmental impact statement in accordance with the town and country planning regulations before proceeding with a decision on the use of Throckmorton airfield as the site of a proposed asylum accommodation centre. [33062]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: Home Office officials met recently with planning officials from Wychavon district council regarding the potential development of the airfield at Throckmorton. They will, in the near future and in agreement with the planning authority, embark on a consultation exercise with all relevant parties including local authorities, providers of local services and members of the local community.

  The potential accommodation centre site at the Throckmorton airfield is a Crown development and as such my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not have to comply with the town and country planning regulations. However, an environmental impact study will be included as part of the planning notification package, to be submitted in accordance with Circular 18/84, to Wychavon district council.

  The Home Office does intend to apply the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to the development of proposed asylum accommodation centres. These provisions are being applied on the basis of the urgent national need relating to the development of accommodation centres. Officials at the Home Department are currently meeting with the relevant local planning authorities on this matter.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what type of identification system will be used for residents at asylum seeker accommodation centres. [34584]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend that when the trial accommodation centres are opened, the new application registration card which was launched on 31 January 2002 will be issued to all new asylum seekers, including accommodation centre residents.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much spending money adult residents at asylum seeker accommodation centres will receive. [34583]

  Angela Eagle
  Residents will receive a small cash allowance to cover incidental expenses, the amount of which has yet to be decided.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which part of the airfield at Throckmorton he is considering building an asylum accommodation centre. [34494]
  463W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The Home Office is currently assessing the suitability of various areas within the boundary of the Throckmorton airfield for the potential siting of an accommodation centre. Officials are in consultation with a number of parties, including the owner of the airfield and Wychavon district council, on issues which may impact on any decision on the precise siting of the potential development.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for deciding the locations of the proposed asylum accommodation centres. [31732]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the previous answer given on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 57W.

  Security Industry Authority
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Security Industry Authority will be set up. [34104]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government wish to establish the Security Industry Authority as soon as possible. To that end, we shall shortly be announcing the appointment of its Chair and Chief Executive.

  Spouses (Permanent Residence Applications)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of cases of applications for permanent residence visas by spouses of UK citizens taking more than eight weeks to process at the latest date for which figures are available. [33972]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the processing times for individual types of application is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only by scrutiny of individual case files, at disproportionate cost. We are currently introducing a new management information system which will provide much better information in due course on all of the applications in the system.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of postal applications for permanent residence visas for spouses of UK citizens are processed in three weeks. [33968]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not routinely publish average processing times for individual types of application. We aim to decide all straightforward applications within three weeks, but at present it is taking up to seven weeks due to the exceptionally high number of applications received, particularly in the latter half of 2001, and process changes which are being introduced to improve our longer term performance. We are working to reduce this to three weeks as soon as possible.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data underlies the statement on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website that applications for permanent residence from spouses of UK citizens are taking up to six weeks on average and up to eight weeks in some cases. [33971]
  464W
  Angela Eagle
  Applications are normally processed in date order irrespective of category. The information on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website, which currently states that initial consideration is taking between five to seven weeks, reflects the current average length of time between the receipt of all postal applications in Croydon and their initial consideration by caseworkers. This information is regularly updated. We are working hard to continue to reduce this period back down to our target of three weeks as soon as possible.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the time taken by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to process applications for permanent residence from people who are spouses of UK residents. [33973]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received various representations from hon. Members and from applicants and their representatives about the current turnaround time for considering general after entry casework. No statistics are kept centrally on the number of such representations.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason applicants for permanent residence visas on the basis of being a spouse of UK citizens are advised not to send their applications more than five weeks before the previous visa expires. [33969]

  Angela Eagle
  One of the requirements of the relevant Immigration Rules is the completion of a period of 12 months following admission to the United Kingdom, or having been given an extension of stay for 12 months as the spouse of a person present and settled here. People who apply too early cannot meet this requirement, hence the advice in the relevant application form.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34283]

  Angela Eagle
  Expenditure by the Home Office on external legal costs can be split into two main areas:

  (i) Litigation: This includes judicial review proceedings (eg challenges to decisions by the Immigration and Nationality Division or the Prison Service), personal injury claims, employment tribunal cases, commercial litigation and other miscellaneous disputes;

  (ii) Commercial legal advice: This includes advice on procurement (eg contracts to build new prisons or the installation of new computer systems).

  Home Office litigation is handled by the Treasury Solicitor's Department who also provide and/or manage external legal services on some Home Office procurement projects. Over the last four years the Home Office expenditure with the Treasury Solicitor's Department is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1998–99

  14,487,753

  1999–2000

  11,710,362

  2000–01

  16,781,326

  2001–021

  13,809,191

  1 To date

  465W
  These figures include VAT and disbursements eg Counsels' fees and fees of external solicitors. The figures are gross. They do not take account of recovered costs. Neither do they include costs paid to third parties by way of damages or compensation.

  In addition the individual Units in the Home Office instruct Counsel or external solicitors direct without going through the Treasury Solicitor's Department. No central record is kept of such expenditure and to obtain such details would incur a disproportionate cost. The figures above also do not include the cost of the Home Office Legal Adviser's Branch.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 532W, on the fast track work permit scheme, if he will list (a) the members of the panel of representatives from the technology communications and electronics sector to which he refers and (b) the organisations to which they belong. [34799]

  Angela Eagle
  The Information Technology, Communications and Electronics (ITCE) sector panel is composed of other Government Departments and relevant industry bodies and not individuals. The organisations that are represented on the ITCE sector panel are:

  Association of Technology Staffing Companies

  British Computer Society

  Computer Software Services Association

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department for Education and Skills

  e-Skill National Training Organisation

  Federation of the Electronics Industry

  Institution of Electrical Engineers

  National Training Organisation for Engineering and Manufacturing

  Professional Contractor Group

  Recruitment and Employment Confederation.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 532W, on the fast track work permit scheme, if he will make a statement on the evidence adduced to justify the inclusion of Oracle database administration in the list of shortage occupations for the purposes of the fast track work permit scheme. [34800]

  Angela Eagle
  At the Information Technology, Communications and Electronics (ITCE) sector panel meeting held on 10 October 2001 evidence from panel members restricted the Database Specialist to Oracle Database Administrator. That in itself is under review following the ITCE meeting in January 2002 as further evidence is provided by panel members. Further information has been requested from panel members, before considering the removal of this specific shortage occupation.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown, by category, of the work permits approved under the shortage occupation category for information technology since 21 January 2000. [34797]
  466W
  Angela Eagle
  The number of work permits approved under the shortage occupation category for information technology since 21 January 2000 is:

  Number

  Analyst programme

  2,505

  Business analyst

  331

  Computer engineer

  410

  Computer programmer

  1,293

  Database specialist

  162

  Information Technology (IT) manager

  172

  Network specialist

  304

  Project manager

  300

  Software engineer

  4,681

  System analyst

  2,375

  Other IT related occupations1

  7,759

  1 This category includes occupations that are on the published shortage occupation list but are not captured separately for management information purposes by the Work Permits United Kingdom computer system.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women serving life sentences in England and Wales have tariff sentences of (i) less than two years, (ii) between two and five years, (iii) between five and 10 years, and (iv) above 10 years. [34593]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information, which relates to tariff periods set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for both men and women mandatory lifers is as follows: (i) less than two years—nil, (ii) between two and five years—five, (iii) between five and 10 years—463, and (iv) over 10 years—2,526. Information about tariffs for prisoners serving a life sentence for serious offences other than murder and those detained during Her Majesty's pleasure is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration Detainees (Purposeful Activities)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reintroduce purposeful activity for the inmates of removal centres. [34743]

  Angela Eagle
  Persons detained at immigration removal centres are, in line with the requirements of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, provided with opportunities to take part in a wide range of purposeful activity including education, sports, physical education, arts and crafts, drama and library.

  "Sport and Charity"
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses to the Charity Commission consultation paper, "Sport and Charity", were received from(a) voluntary sports clubs,(b) sports governing bodies and (c) the legal and accountancy professions. [34515]

  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 the hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Immigration Office (Belfast)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the facilities available at the immigration office in Belfast, with specific reference to passport and visa services. [35035]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: There are no plans to extend the facilities available to members of the public at the Immigration Office in Belfast. Passport services for British Citizens are provided by the United Kingdom Passport Agency and for other nationalities by their relevant high commissions and embassies. Visas for entry to the United Kingdom are issued by posts overseas.

  Children's Rights
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage Government departments to consider the impact of new policies and legislation on children and young people. [31164]

  Mr. Denham
  In November, the Government published for consultation a framework for an overarching strategy for children and young people. "Building a Strategy for Children and Young People" sets out 10 principles for all children and young people's policies and services to ensure that they are centred on their best interests. Each principle has been developed to take into account the UN convention on the rights of the child and will provide a framework for the way Government Departments develop new policies and legislation.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit within his responsibility. [36365]

  Angela Eagle
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £841,193,000 from £9,862,267,000 to £10,703,460,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £117,831,000 from £2,405,643,000 to £2,523,474,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  892,496

  -51,303

  New DEL

  9,670,789

  1,032,671

  Of which:

  Voted

  9,374,386

  923,315

  Non-voted

  296,403

  109,356

  The increases will be offset by charges to the DEL reserve and by interdepartmental transfers. They will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  468W
  A detailed breakdown of the Spring Supplementary changes has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the Charity Commission's departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36366]

  Angela Eagle
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Charity Commission Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £700,000 from £22,792,000 to £23,492,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £700,000 from £21,483,000 to £22,183,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  700,000

  0

  New DEL

  22,163,000

  1,329,000

  Of which:

  Voted

  22,163,000

  1,329,000

  Non-voted

  0

  0

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a £700,000 increase in administration costs, in line with agreement given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  The £700,000 increase in administration costs will be met from the take up of DEL End Year Flexibility carry forward from 2000–01.

  The increases will be charged to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Young Voters
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made since 29 October in encouraging young people to vote; and if he will make a statement. [31166]

  Mr. Denham
  Further to my answer on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 710W, the Children and Young People's Unit are currently extending consultation with young people to test out and develop the initial views expressed at the event on 29 October. This involves regional consultation workshops which will take place during February, a survey of around 1,100 young people, and further opportunities to respond to the survey via the unit's website. A key theme that has emerged from early consultations is the role of the media, and some specific work with young people is planned to examine this in more depth. In addition the unit has established a network of external organisations to help promote the debate about youth disengagement from democracy. The unit continues to work closely with the Electoral Commission and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and it remains my intention to produce conclusions and recommendations for further action later this year.

HEALTH

  Private Health Sector
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of spare capacity in the private health sector; and if he will provide a breakdown by region. [11116]

  Mr. Hutton
  The major United Kingdom providers of private health care have indicated that they have spare capacity available for treating national health service patients which could increase the amount of NHS-funded work within the private sector to approximately 100,000 cases per annum.

  The capacity available in the private sector varies over time and by specialty. It is for NHS commissioning organisations to investigate capacity available in the independent sector as part of planning elective capacity.

  To help the NHS to find out about available capacity in the independent sector, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency has established a secure website where independent health care providers are able to post offers of treatment for NHS patients, by hospital and clinical specialty.

  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has collated on the number of(a) doctors and (b) nurses employed by the private health sector. [23894]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data about the number of doctors working in the private sector.

  Between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000 a total of 70,897 permanent and temporary qualified nursing staff were employed in private nursing homes and residential care homes. The Department does not collect information covering the number of nurses working in private hospitals and the voluntary sector.

  Haemophilia Drugs
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when sufficient supplies of rcFVIII will be available to match demand from United Kingdom-resident patients requiring this treatment. [22327]

  Yvette Cooper
  In England and Northern Ireland, the policy is to provide recombinant clotting factors for new haemophilia patients and children under 16. Scotland and Wales are committed to providing recombinant products for all haemophilia patients. We are actively considering extending the provision of recombinant clotting factors to all haemophilia patients in England when supplies allow.

  Because of the current world shortage of recombinant clotting factors, some patients across the United Kingdom have been switched from recombinant to plasma derived clotting factors as a temporary measure but this situation is improving. The Department is working with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation and with industry to manage available supplies.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mental health services are made available to armed services' personnel; and if he will make a statement. [22093]
  470W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Mental health services are available to armed services' personnel via the services that form part of the Defence Medical Services and/or through services provided to the general population in the national health service. We have embarked upon a radical programme of modernisation to improve access to effective treatment and care in the NHS, reduce unfair variation, raise standards and provide quicker and more convenient services across the spectrum of care. There is also current guidance relevant to war pensioners (Health Service Guidance (97)31) to ensure referrals within the NHS make specific reference to the need for treatment for the condition for which the pension was awarded.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of his policy that nobody with severe mental illness who asks for treatment should be refused; and if he will make a statement. [35513]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The National Service Framework (NSF) for Mental Health, published in September 1999, sets out national standards for mental health. The NSF contains seven overarching standards, two of which are specifically about the provision of effective services for people with severe mental illness. The standards aim to ensure that each person with severe mental illness receives the range of mental health services they need. Implementation of the NSF standards is an on-going process that should be largely completed by 2004.

  Performance monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that the appropriate services are in place within that time scale.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of recruitment and retention of staff of mental health services. [35514]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Recruitment and retention of staff is a key issue for mental health services. Work is taking place on a number of issues to improve recruitment and retention, and includes:
  considering the recommendations made by the Workforce Action Team on recruitment and retention;
  working with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to look at recruitment and retention issues, such as the retention of senior house officers, working patterns and workload and retirement plan;
  analysing the reports from the local implementation teams about recruitment and retention.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 248W, on mental health, what conclusions he has reached as to the reasons for the fall in the number of new episodes of care since 1996–97. [35484]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The reason for the fall in new episodes of care may be due to an increase in the average duration of each episode of care which rose from about three months in 1996–97 to over four months in 1999–2000. However, only cautious interpretations are possible on so small a sample of data. The full data set are available on the website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/KT240001
  471W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people in contact with specialist mental health services have access to crisis resolution services. [35504]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: As at 31 October 2001 local implementation teams reported that there were 52 crisis resolution teams in place out of a NHS Plan target of 335.

  It is further reported via the local implementation teams (LITs) self assessment reports that 4 per cent. of LITs had complete coverage of this type of service for its population and that a further 44 per cent. of LITs had a service although it was still being developed in line with service specifications and population need.

  It is not possible at this point to equate the responses to the actual populations served but it would appear that service developments currently allow for the availability of a service to almost 50 per cent. of the LIT populations.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which PFI project in mental health services have been(a) approved and (b) had contracts signed since 5 November 2001. [35511]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership National Health Service Trust was given approval to proceed under the private finance initiative on 11 February 2002 for the modernisation of mental health services.

  No PFI contracts for mental health service schemes valued above £1 million have been signed since 5 November 2001. Central records are not kept for schemes below this value.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 741W, on the "Mind Out For Mental Health" campaign, whether working minds employers' tool kits are available; and what stocks there are. [35483]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Tookits can be accessed from the employer's section of the campaign website at www.mindout.net, and can be downloaded free of charge by users.

  An order has been placed for a reprint of a further 1,000 working minds employers' toolkits. We hope that these will be available in March 2002.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the national women's mental health strategy; and if he will make a statement on progress. [35489]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The Department will publish the women's mental health consultation document later in the year.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to launch the consultation on the black and ethnic minority mental health service users' strategy. [35496]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 29 October 2001, Official Report, column 554W and on 5 November 2001, Official Report, columns 101-05W.
  472W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health out of area admissions which were not clinically indicated there were in the latest period for which figures are available. [35505]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 January 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the number of staff supporting mental health carers has changed since he set his target. [35512]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The National Plan set a target for 2004 that 700 more staff will be recruited to increase the breaks available for carers and to strengthen care support networks. In pursuance of this target, all regular carers of people with mental health problems will have been identified, received an assessment and have their own care support plans by April 2004. By June 2004, local support networks for these carers will have been developed.

  The statutory and voluntary sector currently provide support to carers, and the Department is developing a service specification for carers support services which will be available in April against which we will measure progress.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 741W, on the "Mind Out For Mental Health" campaign, whether decisions have been made on communications expenditure for 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [35485]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Decisions have not been made on communications expenditure for 2002–03.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new graduate primary care mental health workers have been employed since he set his target. [35500]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Central information on the number of new graduate primary care mental health workers is not yet available. Funds to support the appointment of 1,000 such staff will be allocated in 2003–04.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prisons will have no mental health in-reach services by 2004. [35487]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: By March 2004, mental health in-reach services are planned to be available in the 70 or so prisons in England and Wales judged to have the greatest mental health need, of a current total of 136 establishments.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 817W, on mental health services, by what means he intends to assess whether he has reached his target that by 2004 no out of area crisis mental health admissions which are not clinically indicated take place. [35486]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The Department is working with the national health service to develop reporting lines which differentiate

  473W
  between crisis admissions that are appropriately referred and dealt with by out of area services and those that were not.

  The development of robust crisis resolution teams nationally would allow for a degree of confidence that no admissions were occurring out of area inappropriately.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the 2001–02 budget for the National Institute for Mental Health has been spent. [35491]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: At the end of January, £373,000 had been spent on the National Institute for Mental Health.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many more community mental health staff have been employed since he set his target. [35501]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The NHS Plan sets a target for 500 more community mental health staff.

  Community mental health staff are employed by the national health service, local authorities and voluntary and independent sector organisations. Data currently collected by the Department identify community psychiatry nurses but medical, therapy and social care staff working in mental health services in the community are not identified separately.

  Between 1999, baseline for the NHS Plan, and 2001, the number of qualified community psychiatry nurses employed in the NHS increased from 10,552 to 12,224. In the same period all staff employed in community psychiatry increased from 12,989 to 14,905.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health early intervention teams have been established; and what his target is. [35502]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The local implementation teams submitted details on services developed in a service mapping exercise which was validated by 31 October 2001.

  Based on the details in those reports there were 16 early intervention teams in place by that date out of a target for 2003–04 of 50, as set out in the NHS plan.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of whether it will be possible to meet his commitment that no prisoner with serious mental illness will leave prison without a care plan and a care co-ordinator by 2004. [35488]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Mental health in-reach services to prisons are already being established in 22 prisons in England and Wales this year. We plan to expand that to an additional 25 prisons during 2002–03, with further development during 2003–04 so that by March 2004 in-reach will be available within the 70 or so prisons judged to have the greatest mental health need.

  By targeting need in this way we expect to be able to encompass within the in-reach project the 5,000 prisoners at any one time who have severe and enduring mental illness. This will ensure that they are receiving more comprehensive services while in prison, and more effective throughcare when they are released.
  474W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health crisis resolution teams have now been established; and what his target is. [35503]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The local implementation teams (LITs) submitted details on services developed in a service mapping exercise which was validated by 31 October 2001.

  Based on the details in those reports there were 52 crisis resolution teams in place by that date out of a target for March 2004, of 335, as set out in the NHS plan.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in evaluating the Working Minds programme. [35498]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: As I indicated in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 26 November 2001, Official Report, column 742W, evaluation of the Working Minds programme is continuing.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mental health in-reach services in prisons are operating; and how many prisoners have such services available to them [35515]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Mental health in-reach services are being developed in 18 English prisons during 2001–02, as well as in the four Welsh prisons. Once established, these services will be available to any prisoner within those establishments who is assessed as needing the level of mental health care that in-reach offers.

  We are planning to expand in-reach services during 2002–03 and 2003–04 so that by March 2004 it will be available in around 70 prisons judged to have the greatest mental health need.

  Nursing Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nursing homes have had their residents assessed for eligibility for Government contributions to their nursing care; [23405]

  (2) what proportion of residents of nursing homes who have been assessed for Government contributions to their nursing costs have been judged as eligible to receive those payments; and in what bands of payment these residents fall. [23420]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect such data centrally on a routine basis. However, preliminary information available from regions of the position at the end of December, indicates that around 80 per cent. of the nursing homes with residents eligible for national health service funded nursing care had had their residents' needs for care determined by a registered nurse. The majority of the remainder will be completed by the end of this month.

  Stroke
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of stroke patients were treated in special stroke units in each of the last five years; and what were the survival rates in each case; [24681]
  475W
  (2) what have been the survival rates for stroke patients treated in non-specialist units in each of the last five years. [24682]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested on the percentage of stroke patients treated in special stroke units and the survival rates for stroke patients treated in non-specialist units is not collected centrally.

  The Royal College of Physician's sentinel audit published in 1999 did show however, that 18 per cent. of stroke patients spent at least 50 per cent. of their time in a stroke unit. A subsequent audit in 2000 showed that this figure had risen to 26 per cent.

  The National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People, published on 27 March 2001, requires 100 per cent. of all general hospitals which care for people with stroke to have a specialised stroke service, as described in the NSF stroke service model, by April 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 23 October 2001 regarding Dr. Mehta and Dexa screening services. [25952]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 29 January.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to help local authority social services meet charges incurred by criminal record checks from the Criminal Records Bureau. [25780]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The cost of certificates will be charged to the individual on whom the check is sought, although there is nothing to stop an employer such as a local authority reimbursing the individual if they so wish.

  Medical Treatment (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients resident in England and Wales received treatment at medical facilities in Scotland in each of the last five years. [27425]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 10 January 2002, Official Report, columns 997–98W.

  Ministerial Rail Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last used the railway service in connection with his official duties; what station he left from and what was the destination; and whether it is his intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28089]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend last used the railway in connection with official duties on 14 November 2001 travelling from London to Harrogate.

  All arrangements for official travel are made in line with guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial code and the accompanying guidance document "Travel by
  476W
  Ministers", using the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths in(a) the UK and (b) the London Borough of Hillingdon there have been in each of the last five years from (i) cancer, (ii) heart disease and (iii) stroke. [28485]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Annual mortality from coronary heart disease (ICD9 410–414): Number of deaths, 1995 to 1999, all ages

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Males

  England

  67,640

  65,889

  62,668

  61,254

  58,496

  Hillingdon

  283

  284

  261

  276

  238

  Females

  England

  56,246

  54,903

  52,182

  51,211

  47,964

  Hillingdon

  230

  238

  191

  189

  176

  Persons

  England

  123,886

  120,792

  114,850

  112,465

  106,460

  Hillingdon

  513

  522

  452

  465

  414

  Annual mortality from stroke (ICD9 430–438): Number of deaths, 1995 to 1999, all ages

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Males

  England

  20,632

  20,822

  20,275

  19,994

  19,314

  Hillingdon

  80

  69

  86

  70

  64

  Females

  England

  35,076

  35,268

  33,872

  33,677

  32,957

  Hillingdon

  124

  147

  153

  108

  118

  Persons

  England

  55,708

  56,090

  54,147

  53,671

  52,271

  Hillingdon

  204

  216

  239

  178

  182

  Annual mortality from all malignant neoplasms (ICD9 140–208): Number of deaths, 1995 to 1999, all ages

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Males

  England

  67,740

  67,356

  65,874

  66,592

  64,922

  Hillingdon

  283

  292

  295

  282

  275

  Females

  England

  62,087

  62,119

  61,278

  60,943

  60,240

  Hillingdon

  279

  296

  291

  290

  265

  477W

  Annual mortality from all malignant neoplasms (ICD9 140–208): Number of deaths, 1995 to 1999, all ages

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Persons

  England

  129,827

  129,475

  127,152

  127,535

  125,162

  Hillingdon

  562

  588

  586

  572

  540

  Health Authorities (West Midlands)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the underspend or overspend was in(a) 1999–2000 (b) 2000–01 and the latest forecast figures for (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03 for each health authority in the west midlands region. [29270]

  Yvette Cooper
  The level of under or overspending for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is shown in the table. By the end of this financial year we expect all health authorities to live within their agreed resource limits. Where they require support at year-end this will be provided principally through brokerage from elsewhere in the national health service. This is normal practice in managing the year-end financial position of individual bodies and for the NHS overall. Information for 2003–03 is not available.

  £000

  Health authority

  1999–2000 Surplus/(deficit)

  2000–01 Over/(under) spending

  Birmingham HA

  (1,899)

  766

  Coventry HA

  (5,230)

  2,263

  Dudley HA

  (51)

  585

  Herefordshire HA

  822

  220

  North Staffordshire HA

  (625)

  0

  Sandwell HA

  (2,896)

  0

  Shropshire HA

  (1,729)

  180

  Solihull HA

  (133)

  625

  South Staffordshire HA

  (4,593)

  2,025

  Walsall HA

  (909)

  577

  Warwickshire HA

  (8,661)

  3,167

  Wolverhampton HA

  (2,812)

  41

  Worcestershire HA

  (1,482)

  1,199

  Notes:

  1. Under or overspends have been interpreted as income and expenditure surpluses or deficits in 1999–2000.

  2. Following the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, the operational financial balance has been used as a measure of under or overspending in 2000–01. All health authorities in west midlands achieved break-even or an underspend in these terms.

  Source:

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 and 2000–2001

  Growth Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been issued to health authorities regarding adult growth hormone replacement therapy; [30829]

  (2) how many health authorities provide funding for adult growth hormone replacement therapy. [30830]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about funding for adult growth hormone replacement therapy is not centrally available.
  478W
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently carrying out two appraisals, human growth hormone in children which is due in April 2002, providing there are no appeals and human growth hormone in adults which is due in July 2002, providing there are no appeals.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cumulative(a) surplus and (b) deficit was of (i) each NHS trust by region, (ii) each region and (iii) England in each year since 1997. [30761]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the length of time spent by Mr. Sidney Hockley in the Accident and Emergency Unit at the Whittington hospital; and if his officials contacted(a) Mr. Hockley and (b) Miss Lesley Hockley on the subject. [31647]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 January 2002): Mr. Hockley was seen and treated by the medical staff throughout his stay and his nursing notes record appropriate observation and care. On the grounds of patient confidentiality it would not be appropriate to discuss this patient's care further.

  No departmental officials contacted Mr. Hockley or Miss Lesley Hockley on this subject.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 940W, on intermediate care, if he will publish the results of the survey showing the (a) current and (b) base line figures for each NHS region, health authority and trust and the methodology used. [32698]

  Jacqui Smith
  The survey of national health service intermediate care in England validated the 1999–2000 baseline and established current levels of provision using the defining criteria in the January 2001 circular (Health Service Circular 2001/01:Local Authority Circular (2001)1). In August 2001, local health and social care communities were asked to provide data for intermediate care services in place in 1999–2000, and those planned at that time for 2001–02, to enable progress in achieving the NHS Plan targets for intermediate care beds and places to be measured.

  The results of the survey show that by the end of this year there will be, compared to the baseline of 1999–2000, around an additional:

  2,400 intermediate care beds

  6,200 non-residential intermediate care places

  126,000 people in receipt of intermediate care services.

  The full results of the survey, giving data by region and by health authority, are in the Library. Data by individual trust were not collected.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the European directive on dietary supplements. [32708]

  Yvette Cooper
  The proposed directive would establish the framework for harmonised controls on vitamin and mineral content of food supplements and introduce a number of useful labelling measures. The impact on consumer choice and the specialist food supplement sector would depend on future developments on maximum limits and lists of permitted nutrients.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned regarding the health risks to children living in close proximity to landfill sites. [32241]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department, together with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency, has commissioned the following reviews and research projects on the impacts of health on landfill sites:

  1. A review of existing data to assess whether substances emanating from landfill sites have potential to cause congenital malformations (birth defects).

  2. A review of the known causes of congenital malformations,

  3. A study of the geographical variation in overall rates of congenital anomalies and the rates of specific anomalies, and

  4. Exposure assessment of landfill sites. A Government-funded study of birth outcomes and selected cancers in populations living near landfill sites, carried out by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit, was published in August 2001. A copy of the report is available in the Library and on the Department's website. Further information on the research programme can also be found on the website www.doh.gov.uk/landh.htm

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding health risks to families living in close proximity to landfill sites. [32239]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is aware of a number of research studies published in the scientific literature which investigate health outcomes in people living near landfill sites. These have been considered by the Department, which has sought advice from the independent expert advisory committee, the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). They felt that it was not possible to draw any definite conclusions regarding possible health effects from these studies and further research was warranted. The most recent statement by the COT is available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/landh.htm. We have commissioned a programme of work on the impacts on health of landfill sites, details of which are also available on the website, and the Department continues to monitor relevant publications.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on measures introduced since 1997 to help combat heart disease. [32539]
  480W
  Yvette Cooper
  We have made it clear that tackling heart disease is one of our top priorities and in March 2000, we published the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease which sets out standards for improving prevention, diagnosis and treatment services throughout the country. A progress report, entitled "Delivering Better Heart Services", issued November 2001 is available in the Library.

  Lister Hospital
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the child accident and emergency ward at the Lister hospital to be opened to patients; and if he will make a statement. [32299]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: East and North Hertfordshire National Health Service Trust has received additional funding through the reforming emergency care strategy announced last year and is in the process of recruiting five whole time equivalent nurses to staff the paediatric assessment unit at the Lister hospital. The opening of the paediatric assessment unit will be dependent on successful recruitment to these posts.

  Delayed Discharge
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rate of delayed discharge was for(a) patients aged over 75 years in March 1997 and (b) all patients in the quarter end December 2001. [33498]

  Jacqui Smith
  In March 1997 the rate of delayed discharge (on any one day the percentage of patients over 75 years old occupying an acute hospital bed whose discharge is delayed) was 13 per cent. The most recent data available are for September 2001 when the equivalent rate for patients over 75 was 12 per cent. and for patients of all ages 6.6 per cent.

  Operations (South Humber)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were carried out in the South Humber health authority area in each year from 1992 to 2001; and how many operations were cancelled in each of those years. [33491]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table details the operations carried out in the South Humber health authority area in each year from 1991–2001.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where an operation was performed NHS hospitals, South Humber HA (formerly Grimsby and Scunthorpe DHA) 1992–93 to 2000–01

  (D)HA

  Year

  FCEs

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe DHA

  1992–93

  33,482

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe DHA

  1993–94

  32,224

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe DHA

  1994–95

  34,635

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe DHA

  1995–96

  37,816

  South Humber HA

  1996–97

  35,908

  South Humber HA

  1997–98

  39,266

  South Humber HA

  1998–99

  45,308

  South Humber HA

  1999–2000

  47,022

  South Humber HA

  2000–01

  52,480

  Notes:

  1. An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  481W

  2. Care must be taken when analysing time series data by health authority as boundaries may have changed over the years.

  3. Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1998–99 to 2000–01 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  The following table shows the number of operations cancelled in the South Humber health authority area for the years 1996–67 to 2000–01. Information is not available for the years prior to 1996.

  Total number of last minute cancelled operations for non-clinical reasons, South Humber health authority, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  2001–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  Quarter 1

  59

  82

  77

  40

  99

  Quarter 2

  80

  74

  80

  41

  66

  Quarter 3

  67

  64

  52

  58

  49

  Quarter 4

  86

  113

  65

  54

  31

  Total for year

  292

  33

  274

  193

  245

  Note:

  Data prior to 1996 are not available

  Source:

  DH form QMPC and QMNG

  Foundation Status Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an NHS trust with foundation status which has established a joint venture company will(a) have to meet financial liabilities from its own budget and (b) have recourse to NHS material funds. [33947]

  Mr. Hutton
  The details surrounding the establishment of foundation hospitals have not yet been determined. The Department will work with chief executives of three star national health service trusts to examine the legal, financial, governance and accountability issues.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the funds which will be spent by NHS trusts seeking foundation status in the(a) current and (b) next financial year. [33948]

  Mr. Hutton
  No estimates have been made of the funds which will be spent by national health service trusts seeking foundation status. In part, this will depend upon the number of trusts making applications in each year. No trusts are seeking foundation status in the current financial year.

  NHS trust net book value of disposals

  £000

  NHS trust code

  NHS trust name

  Land

  Buildings and other assets

  1997–981

  RGT

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  88

  244

  RDD

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  111

  RCP

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Service Trust

  31

  12

  RMB

  Blackburn, H'burn and Ribble Valley NHS Trust

  0

  5

  RMR

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  80

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  429

  RGA

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  67

  RCV

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,500

  3,993

  RFS

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital Trust

  0

  409

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  9

  27

  NHS Accommodation (London)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units of nursing or doctor accommodation were(a) sold, (b) put up for sale and (c) withdrawn from sale in each of the last 10 years by NHS organisations in London. [34441]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available in respect of both property owned by NHS trusts and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  The NHS Plan recognises the need for extra residential accommodation for nurses and other staff in London and we are well on course to deliver the target of 2,000 extra places for nurses and other national health service staff by July 2003.

  Hospital Admissions
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many day admissions to hospitals there were in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [34074]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The numbers of day case admissions to hospitals for each year from 1991–92 to 2000–01 (the last 10 years for which data are available) are outlined in the table.

  Day case admissions for national health service hospitals in England

  Day cases

  1991–92

  1,546,778

  1992–93

  1,784,091

  1993–94

  2,106,998

  1994–95

  2,490,893

  1995–96

  2,745,936

  1996–97

  2,891,685

  1997–98

  3,085,832

  1998–99

  3,420,795

  1999–2000

  3,592,574

  2000–01

  3,619,521

  NHS Asset Sales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, columns 781-82W, on the NHS, what was the total value of the (a) land and (b) buildings and other assets disposed of by each three star NHS trust since 1997. [34573]

  Mr. Hutton
  The tables show the total value of(a) land and (b) buildings and other assets disposed of by each of the three star national health service trusts since 1997.
  483W

  NHS trust net book value of disposals

  £000

  NHS trust code

  NHS trust name

  Land

  Buildings and other assets

  RJR

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  775

  18

  RDU

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services NHS Trust

  32

  181

  RJZ

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  180

  433

  RC9

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  63

  RQ8

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  6,584

  1,971

  RMI

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust

  33

  98

  RNS

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  108

  RBZ

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  7

  RGN

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  15

  42

  RQW

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  16

  RG2

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  156

  216

  RH8

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  60

  RK5

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RA9

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  43

  187

  RE9

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  274

  RBA

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  0

  306

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  16

  RN1

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  17

  1998–992

  RGT

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RDD

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospital NHS Trust

  3,751

  3,153

  RCP

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Service Trust

  0

  196

  RMB

  Blackburn, H'burn and Ribble Valley NHS Trust

  0

  8

  RMR

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  54

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  834

  652

  RGA

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  80

  RCV

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  197

  RFS

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital Trust

  0

  65

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  24

  106

  RJR

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  26

  61

  RDU

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services NHS Trust

  22

  126

  RJZ

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RC9

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  19

  RQ8

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  0

  255

  RTX

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  266

  RM1

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RNS

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  171

  RBZ

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  RTF

  Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  38

  RGN

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  94

  257

  RQW

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  11

  RG2

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  8,273

  1,577

  RH8

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  113

  RK5

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RA9

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  108

  414

  RTA

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RE9

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  194

  RTG

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  56

  364

  RBA

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  362

  1,899

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  10

  RN1

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  39

  1999–2000

  RGT

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RDD

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  439

  RCP

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Service Trust

  0

  0

  RMB

  Blackburn, H'burn and Ribble Valley NHS Trust

  360

  7

  RMR

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  8

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  48

  409

  RGA

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  118

  120

  RCV

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  34

  RFS

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital Trust

  0

  12

  484W 485W

  NHS trust net book value of disposals

  £000

  NHS trust code

  NHS trust name

  Land

  Buildings and other assets

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RJR

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  0

  20

  RDU

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services NHS Trust

  0

  290

  RJZ

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  750

  1,317

  RC9

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  95

  174

  RQ8

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RTX

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  68

  RM1

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RVW

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  100

  799

  RNS

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RBZ

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  108

  8

  RTF

  Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RGN

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  6

  RQW

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  2,400

  7,408

  RG2

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  81

  RH8

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  22

  RK5

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RA9

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  119

  238

  RTA

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  141

  RE9

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  307

  89

  RTG

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  132

  RBA

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  0

  56

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  16

  152

  RN1

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  33

  103

  2000–01

  RGT

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RDD

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  6

  RCP

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Service Trust

  0

  0

  RMB

  Blackburn, H'burn and Ribble Valley NHS Trust

  0

  2

  RMR

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  15

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  204

  RGA

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  89

  RCV

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,544

  195

  RFS

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital Trust

  0

  11

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  0

  14

  RJR

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  0

  242

  RDU

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  23

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services NHS Trust

  0

  85

  RJZ

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1,552

  RC9

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  407

  768

  RQ8

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RTX

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  282

  949

  RM1

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  153

  RVW

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  0

  22

  RNS

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  94

  273

  RBZ

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  17

  RTF

  Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RGN

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  353

  RQW

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  4

  RG2

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  3,172

  16,086

  RH8

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  28

  RK5

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  115

  RA9

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  134

  RTA

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  0

  RE9

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  81

  136

  RTG

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  216

  RBA

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  0

  5

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  49

  RN1

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  47

  1 The following trusts were not in existence in this year:

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  2 The following trusts were not in existence in this year:

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  486W 487W
  Sources:

  NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 1997–98

  NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 1998–99

  NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 1999–2000

  NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 2000–01

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total income from sales of property by NHS trusts and health authorities was in each financial year since 1997–98; and what his estimate is for each of the next five years. [33307]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. The figures for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 are estimated.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Income from sale of property by NHS trust and health authorities

  1997–98

  231

  1998–99

  242

  1999–2000

  215

  2000–01

  382

  2001–02

  141

  2002–03

  55

  2003–04

  158

  2004–05

  1—

  2005–06

  1—

  2006–07

  1—

  1 Not available

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total underspend in his Department was on(a) capital and (b) non-capital expenditure in each financial year since May 1997. [34028]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The information requested is given in the table.

  £million

  Year

  Capital

  Non-capital

  1997–98

  124

  56

  1998–99

  106

  177

  1999–2000

  220

  -44

  2000–01

  142

  550

  Notes

  1. Figures for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 based on Department of Health Appropriation Accounts adjusted for NHS trust non-voted expenditure.

  2. 2000–01 figures are provisional and on a resource basis. They are not comparable with previous years. They include £250 million carry forward of the Department's unallocated provision.

  3. A negative sign denotes an overspend on that part of the vote.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility social services authorities have to identify unmet need for care and personal social services. [34361]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: Recent guidance issued by the Department "Building capacity and partnership in care" reminds councils with social services responsibilities that they should commission services on the basis of rounded assessments of current and future needs within the general population, and they should identify gaps and shortfalls in services in the context of service users' aspirations.
  488W
  At a practical level, councils should take account of the numbers of people who approach them for help, and their presenting problems, but who are not eligible for council support. They will be assisted in this task through reference to the Department's statistical return "Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care". Councils may use this information when reviewing their eligibility criteria and the services they provide.

  In addition, once councils with social services responsibilities have identified needs that fall within their eligibility criteria, they should meet those needs in the most cost-effective way. Councils should monitor and review the provision of care services to individuals to ensure that services remain appropriate and suitable and that assessed needs are met.

  International Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 781W, on international recruitment, if he will list those international nursing recruitment agencies which have failed to adhere to the code of practice; and where he publishes such information. [34864]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans to publish the names of the international nursing recruitment agencies who fail to adhere to the Code of Practice. We do not plan to publish a list of those international nursing recruitment agencies who have signed up to comply with the code.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects anonymised data to be available to allow him to publish the cost of sending patients abroad for treatment. [34769]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The test bed scheme will finish later this year and is being evaluated. We will make further information on prices available in the light of the evaluation of the scheme.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the 2000–01 figures for hospital admissions in respect of eating disorders. [35088]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: There were 1,700 finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of eating disorder in 2000–01. These figures have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data and therefore have a provisional status.

  Care Homes
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has published regarding items for which a deduction may be made from the personal expenses allowance by a care home; and if he will make a statement; [34695]
  489W
  (2) whether deductions may be made from the personal expenses allowance for people in care homes to meet (a) any shortfall in fees and (b) items and services; [34696]

  (3) if he will make it his policy that older people in care homes should not be required to contribute part of the personal expenses allowance to meet a shortfall in fees unless it is their express wish to do so. [34698]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Under National Assistance (Sums for Personal Requirements) Regulations, council-supported residents in care homes should receive a personal expenses allowance, currently standing at £16.05 per week. It is for the residents' personal use and the full amount should be made available to residents. It may not be spent on services contracted by councils from homes, and should not be spent on services to meet assessed need identified by either the council or the national health service.

  Because services to meet assessed needs should be tailored to each individual's specific circumstances, it is not helpful to publish definitive lists of what the personal expenses allowance should or should not be spent on.

  Subject to informed consent and prior agreement, residents may have arrangements with care home managers so that items and services, which do not form part of the contract with the council and are not part of council or NHS services to meet assessed need, are automatically paid for out of the personal expenses allowance.

  Residents, except those subject to the 12 weeks property disregard or a deferred payments agreement, should not use resources either disregarded or not taken into account by the financial assessment for council-supported residential care to pay for more expensive accommodation than the council would normally fund. These resources include the personal expenses allowance. These matters are covered in guidance issued to councils.

  Care home residents whose entitlement to higher rates of income support was preserved in 1993 also receive a personal expenses allowance through income support regulations. This allowance is meant for residents' own use on small personal items. In limited circumstances, preserved rights residents who have difficulty in meeting care home fees may be financially helped by councils. The responsibility for preserved rights cases is transferred to councils in April 2002. These residents will be entitled to the personal expenses allowance under National Assistance regulations.

  Angioplasty (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the cancellation of proposed coronary angioplasty procedures for patients in North Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [35555]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: North Yorkshire health authority is aware that concerns have been raised about provision of angioplasty services for local residents due to a misunderstanding in communication for which the health authority took full responsibility. This position has been clarified with all
  490W
  cardiologists and patients. Cardiologists across North Yorkshire continue to treat patients and provide angioplasty in accordance with normal clinical practice.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the decision by North Yorkshire Health authority not to fund proposed coronary angioplasty procedures for patients who had been referred to Leeds Health Trust by consultants at York District hospital as in need of urgent treatment. [35556]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Cardiologists across North Yorkshire continue to treat patients and provide angioplasty in accordance with normal clinical practice. Whenever the procedure takes place, North Yorkshire health authority will provide the required funding. The health authority has clarified this position with all cardiologists serving local residents.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the necessary emergency funding to North Yorkshire health authority to ensure that all patients in the county requiring coronary angioplasty procedures can leave their treatment carried out at Leeds General Infirmary. [35557]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: All patients requiring angioplasty are proceeding with their treatment in accordance with usual clinical practice. By the end of the current financial year North Yorkshire health authority is likely to have spent around £450,000 extra, treating patients in need of this procedure. Discussions are ongoing with regard to identifying resources to match the clinical need in 2002–03.

  Student Midwives
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants are made available to student midwives. [35508]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: National health service bursaries are available to those accepted onto NHS-funded pre-registration midwifery training programmes at both diploma and degree levels.

  Those undertaking the diploma-level qualification receive a non-means tested bursary (currently £5,305 (£6,232 in London)), while those on the degree-level programme receive a means tested bursary (current rate £2,098 (£2,578 in London)) and student loan. Degree-level students receive additional payments to take account of the longer length of academic year undertaken by health professional students and for both groups additional allowances are available to older students, single parents and others with dependants.

  In addition the NHS meets all students' liability for a tuition fee contribution (currently £1,075) on their behalf, in full and without means testing.

  With effect from September 2001 the basic bursaries were increased by 10.4 per cent. coupled with a 2.4 per cent. inflation increase in the additional allowances and other elements of the bursary scheme. This was the biggest increase since the introduction of the bursary more than 10 years ago.
  491W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist to help student midwives complete their courses in the event of financial hardship. [35507]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 November 2001, Official Report, column 851W, which detailed the additional support available to student nurses who experience financial hardship. The same package is available to student midwives experiencing similar difficulties.

  Suicides
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the mortality rate from suicide since his target was set. [35499]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 147W.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a date has been set to launch the suicide prevention strategy. [35506]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: We expect to publish a draft national suicide prevention strategy for public consultation in spring 2002, followed by the final agreed strategy around July 2002.

  Patient Consultants (Waiting Times)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 487W, on patient consultations, what recent research his Department has carried out on the average length of patient consultation times with (a) GPs and (b) hospital consultants; and what the findings were. [24430]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not conducted any recent research on how long general practitioners or hospital consultants currently spend on consultations.

  Children's National Service Framework
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has finished the timetable for the Children's National Service Framework; and if he will make a statement. [35494]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The first part of the Children's National Service Framework, standards for children receiving acute/ hospital care, will be published this year. The timetable for the publication of the rest of NSF has not yet been finalised.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relative health risks posed by (i) brown, (ii) blue and (iii) white varieties of asbestos. [35382]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.
  492W
  The report of the research by HSE epidemiologists, "The Quantitative Risks of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure", was published in the Annals of Occupational Hygiene on 1 December 2000. This paper evaluated the relative health risks of blue, brown and white asbestos. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the written question tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on 25 October, ref. 10662. [16170]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 973W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to provide an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 4 December 2001, Ref 20380. [35517]

  Ms Blears
  I replied to the hon. Member on 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1237W.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 12 October, 16 November, 12 December 2001 and 9 January 2002, relating to her constituent, Mrs. T. Shah of Cheshunt. [26778]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: A reply was sent on 29 January 2002.

  Audiology Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients aged(a) 16 to 59, (b) 60 to 75 and (c) over 75 years were waiting for (i) hearing tests and (ii) other audiology treatment by (A) hospital trust and (B) health authority in each quarter for the last three years. [28845]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data on waiting times for hearing tests are not collected centrally.

  Data are collected on the number of out-patients waiting over 13 weeks for 'audiological medicine'. These are shown in the table. These data are not collected in age-ranges.

  Audiology in-patients are treated within the ear, nose and throat specialty. Data on the number of patients specifically waiting for audiology treatment within the ENT specialty are not collected centrally.

  The "Action on ENT" initiative, which has been established as part of our modernisation strategy for the NHS, is improving access to ENT and audiology services. One element of the initiative focuses specifically on audiology, with the aim of spreading best practice to all audiology departments. Audiology departments are supported to re-design the way services are provided in order to improve access and reduce waiting times.
  493W

  Number of out-patients still waiting at quarter end over 13 weeks for first out-patient appointment in audiological medicine following GP referral

  Name

  September 1998

  December 1998

  March 1999

  June 1999

  September 1999

  December 1999

  Data by trust

  Barking and Dagenham PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City and Hackney PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Manchester PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Surrey County and St. Luke's Hospitals NHS Trust

  118

  89

  87

  78

  68

  25

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  129

  126

  100

  132

  131

  297

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  145

  169

  150

  147

  239

  98

  Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  0

  243

  181

  131

  76

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  33

  35

  40

  28

  31

  52

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital NHS Trust

  29

  31

  30

  7

  2

  2

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  22

  60

  67

  112

  130

  77

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  6

  7

  7

  36

  0

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  8

  18

  17

  4

  13

  0

  City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust

  2

  3

  4

  1

  0

  1

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Surrey Sussex healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  30

  13

  13

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  99

  145

  125

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East and North Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  March 2000

  June 2000

  September 2000

  December 2000

  March 2001

  June 2001

  September 2001

  Barking and Dagenham PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  9

  City and Hackney PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Central Manchester PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Royal Surrey County and St. Luke's Hospitals NHS Trust

  8

  18

  1

  5

  26

  32

  34

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  260

  144

  192

  303

  288

  377

  435

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  55

  1

  3

  4

  2

  2

  3

  Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust

  28

  40

  84

  57

  182

  206

  0

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  233

  185

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  69

  54

  79

  51

  31

  82

  93

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital NHS Trust

  3

  17

  11

  17

  11

  19

  104

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  0

  68

  86

  83

  86

  74

  17

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  67

  147

  192

  90

  243

  377

  438

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  2

  0

  3

  7

  4

  3

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  1

  0

  14

  0

  39

  0

  City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  11

  3

  6

  9

  Surrey Sussex healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  9

  39

  22

  14

  22

  28

  32

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  113

  141

  137

  109

  76

  106

  120

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  4

  East and North Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  14

  10

  24

  15

  35

  37

  Name

  September 1998

  December 1998

  March 1999

  June 1999

  September 1999

  December 1999

  Data by health authority

  Hillingdon HA

  10

  34

  91

  0

  0

  4

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  6

  6

  8

  8

  8

  21

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  3

  4

  7

  9

  9

  0

  494W 495W

  Name

  September 1998

  December 1998

  March 1999

  June 1999

  September 1999

  December 1999

  Bedfordshire HA

  5

  5

  4

  15

  6

  0

  Berkshire HA

  0

  25

  28

  12

  5

  4

  Buckinghamshire HA

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Croydon HA

  1

  3

  6

  1

  8

  10

  East Kent HA

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  West Kent HA

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  3

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  0

  0

  2

  2

  7

  5

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  2

  13

  16

  6

  11

  8

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  18

  287

  236

  199

  255

  186

  East Surrey HA

  7

  1

  6

  8

  11

  7

  West Surrey HA

  97

  81

  73

  50

  69

  23

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  1

  0

  196

  145

  105

  55

  West Sussex HA

  20

  3

  25

  15

  40

  23

  Barking and Havering HA

  8

  2

  0

  4

  4

  3

  Brent and Harrow HA

  11

  14

  7

  31

  16

  22

  Camden and Islington HA

  40

  0

  31

  31

  31

  31

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  7

  9

  2

  3

  4

  3

  East London and City HA

  4

  11

  3

  15

  15

  15

  North Essex HA

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  South Essex HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester HA

  22

  14

  51

  53

  19

  20

  Morecambe Bay HA

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Salford and Trafford HA

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Stockport HA

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Oxfordshire HA

  15

  53

  68

  64

  74

  166

  Suffolk HA

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Barnsley HA

  2

  3

  6

  6

  0

  8

  North Derbyshire HA

  16

  13

  14

  13

  14

  6

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  3

  16

  15

  10

  14

  8

  Doncaster HA

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire HA

  2

  2

  4

  2

  1

  0

  Nottingham HA

  136

  148

  133

  136

  239

  90

  Rotherham HA

  7

  6

  6

  0

  0

  8

  Sheffield HA

  794

  956

  706

  706

  753

  956

  East Lancashire HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  14

  17

  17

  10

  31

  1

  Southampton and SW Hampshire HA

  0

  0

  2

  1

  12

  0

  Somerset HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Riding and Hull HA

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield HA

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Coventry HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Staffordshire HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire HA

  5

  5

  1

  2

  2

  54

  Cambridgeshire HA

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hertfordshire HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 2000

  June 2000

  September 2000

  December 2000

  March 2001

  June 2001

  September 2001

  Hillingdon HA

  3

  5

  2

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  23

  63

  84

  80

  91

  81

  56

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  16

  7

  11

  9

  14

  18

  18

  Bedfordshire HA

  0

  1

  0

  1

  7

  11

  8

  Berkshire HA

  6

  20

  18

  20

  10

  16

  101

  Buckinghamshire HA

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Croydon HA

  6

  9

  5

  0

  0

  3

  7

  East Kent HA

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  West Kent HA

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  4

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  4

  11

  12

  11

  1

  16

  16

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  6

  9

  9

  13

  4

  3

  29

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  186

  263

  293

  184

  302

  433

  516

  East Surrey HA

  5

  6

  8

  16

  4

  9

  22

  West Surrey HA

  8

  16

  1

  6

  23

  32

  33

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  23

  29

  60

  47

  166

  194

  1

  West Sussex HA

  13

  22

  25

  15

  28

  36

  5

  Barking and Havering HA

  2

  0

  4

  4

  4

  5

  6

  Brent and Harrow HA

  17

  57

  20

  42

  37

  50

  47

  Camden and Islington HA

  78

  47

  65

  115

  97

  104

  143

  496W 497W

  March 2000

  June 2000

  September 2000

  December 2000

  March 2001

  June 2001

  September 2001

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  1

  4

  7

  11

  9

  12

  14

  East London and City HA

  43

  15

  18

  39

  40

  18

  71

  North Essex HA

  0

  6

  2

  8

  1

  3

  5

  South Essex HA

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  3

  2

  Manchester HA

  4

  16

  3

  4

  14

  4

  5

  Morecambe Bay HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Salford and Trafford HA

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Stockport HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Oxfordshire HA

  68

  90

  55

  61

  68

  88

  4

  Suffolk HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Barnsley HA

  12

  5

  13

  11

  10

  7

  6

  North Derbyshire HA

  15

  10

  15

  17

  18

  16

  9

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  4

  0

  0

  11

  3

  5

  9

  Doncaster HA

  1

  3

  4

  6

  3

  2

  2

  Lincolnshire HA

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Nottingham HA

  49

  1

  3

  4

  2

  2

  3

  Rotherham HA

  11

  11

  13

  12

  14

  15

  10

  Sheffield HA

  803

  662

  641

  503

  235

  7

  157

  East Lancashire HA

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  0

  2

  2

  5

  5

  4

  8

  Southampton and SW Hampshire HA

  1

  2

  0

  3

  3

  0

  1

  Somerset HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  East Riding and Hull HA

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Wakefield HA

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Coventry HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  232

  0

  South Staffordshire HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Warwickshire HA

  8

  15

  12

  16

  9

  8

  0

  Cambridgeshire HA

  1

  2

  0

  14

  0

  43

  0

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  78

  87

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  81

  88

  Hertfordshire HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  36

  43

  Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  5

  Cancer Services
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated for cancer services in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; how much money is allocated for cancer services in 2002–03 in (i) the NHS Cancer Plan and (ii) the NHS Priorities and Planning Framework 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [29435]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: In 1999–2000 and 2000–01, resources for cancer services were included in general allocations to the national health service. The Department does not collect information that enables a complete figure to be calculated on the cost of a particular disease.

  The time since the publication of the Cancer Plan (September 2000) has seen the biggest ever increase in funding specifically for cancer services.

  In 2001–02 there was an extra £280 million made available for cancer services as promised in the Cancer Plan.

  The NHS priorities and planning framework for 2002–03 earmarked a further £76 million to increase cancer spending (in 2002–03) as promised in the Cancer Plan.

  NHS Pensions
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow general practitioners over the age of 50 years to join the NHS pension scheme. [33494]
  498W
  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners are entitled to join or rejoin the national health service pension scheme at any time until age 70, unless they are aged 50 or over and have already received benefits from the NHS scheme.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioner practices, (b) health trusts and (c) health authorities paid their pension contributions late in the last period for which figures are available. [33621]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of general practitioner practices, national health service trusts and health authorities who have paid pension contributions to the NHS pension scheme for England and Wales after the due date, is set out in the table.

  NHS trusts and health authorities

  General practitioner practices

  November 2001

  Number of participating employers

  735

  631

  Number paid after the due date

  51

  40

  Percentage paid after the due date

  6.9

  6.3

  March 2001

  Number of participating employers

  8,579

  8,606

  Number paid after the due date

  1,336

  1,642

  Percentage paid after the due date

  15.6

  19.1

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses of smallpox vaccine are available in the UK. [33695]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department holds a substantial strategic stock of smallpox vaccine that would be rapidly deployed in the event of an outbreak of the disease. Information about the size and location of the stock is not being put into the public domain as this is information that might be useful to terrorists.

  Radiographers (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many radiographers there were in the Hillingdon Health Authority in each of the last seven years. [34098]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Scientific, therapeutic and technical and staff employed in the radiography1 areas of work within the Hillingdon health authority area as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  Total

  1995

  40

  50

  1996

  50

  50

  1997

  50

  50

  1998

  30

  40

  1999

  30

  30

  2000

  50

  50

  2001

  50

  50

  Qualified

  1995

  40

  40

  1996

  40

  50

  1997

  40

  50

  1998

  30

  30

  1999

  30

  30

  2000

  40

  40

  2001

  40

  40

  Unqualified

  1995

  2—

  2—

  1996

  10

  10

  1997

  10

  10

  1998

  10

  10

  1999

  2—

  2—

  2000

  10

  10

  2001

  10

  10

  1 Hillingdon HA does not employ any Therapeutic radiography staff

  2 =five or less and greater than zero

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Consultancy Vacancies (Cumbria)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the consultancy vacancies at the Cumberland Infirmary and the West Cumbria hospitals, indicating how long each post has been vacant. [34563]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data relating to consultant vacancies in the former Carlisle Hospitals National Health Service Trust and the West Cumbria Healthcare NHS Trust are shown in the table. Data related to the trusts have been supplied as information relating to individual hospitals is 500W
  not collected centrally. The trusts may not directly correspond to existing trusts due to mergers occurring after the vacancy survey was conducted. The vacancy is collected on the basis that it has been unfilled for three months or more.

  NHS vacancy survey, March 2001: Three month vacancy rates and numbers—Consultants

  Three month vacancy rates (percentage)

  Number of three month vacancies

  England

  3.0

  670

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3.6

  110

  West Cumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.0

  1—

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  5.2

  1—

  1 Figures based on less than 10 posts

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents)

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses (whole-time equivalent)

  3. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10

  4. Percentages rounded to one decimal place

  5. England totals include staff from special health authorities

  6. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding

  Source:

  NHS Vacancy Survey, March 2001

  GP Consultations
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons underlay the decision to stop the practice of providing GP consultation automatically for those aged 75 years. [34927]

  Mr. Hutton
  The services that general practitioners are required to provide for all their patients are set out in the Terms of Service, schedule 2 to the National Health Service General Medical Services Regulations 1992. There has been no change to paragraph 16 which states that patients over 75, as well as receiving the full range of general medical services (GMS), are entitled to an annual health check from their GPs. In personal medical services, GPs are required to perform services equivalent in scope to those provided in GMS.

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects the Commission for Health Improvement to complete its investigation and to report on the backlog of ultrasound tests in Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement; [36037]

  (2) when he expects the Commission for Health Improvement to complete its clinical governance review of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [36039]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) plans to publish its report of its clinical governance review of Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust by April 2002. It intends to publish the outcome of its investigation into radiology services at the same trust in the summer.
  501W
  CHI conducts routine clinical governance reviews into arrangements by NHS trusts for the purpose of monitoring and improving the quality of care. It may also carry out investigations into the management, provision or quality of health care.

  If, when carrying out a clinical governance review, a matter comes to CHI's notice which it considers should be the subject of an investigation, it may decide to carry one out. In the case of its review of Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust, CHI has made such a decision in the light of information brought to its attention about a backlog of ultrasound tests.

  Benefit Downrating (Hospital Patients)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what administration costs fall to the NHS in connection with the downrating of benefits during stays in hospital. [35579]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the responsibility of individuals in receipt of social security benefits to notify their local Department for Work and Pensions office when they are admitted or discharged from hospital.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36753]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Work and Pensions departmental expenditure limit will be increased by £40,052,000 from £7,302,415,000 to £7,342,467,000 and the administration cost limit by £56,142,000 from £4,902,843,000 to £4,958,985,000. Within the DEL change the impact on resources and capital are set out in the table:

  £

  Resources

  Change

  19,855

  New DEL

  7,111,469

  Of which:

  Voted

  6,084,747

  Non voted

  1,026,722

  Capital

  Change

  20,197

  New DEL

  230,998

  Of which:

  Voted

  148,071

  Non voted

  82,927

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) a reduction of £53,000 (administration costs) due to a transfer to the Home Office for costs in connection with the evaluation of withdrawal of benefits for offenders in breach of community penalties.

  502W

  (ii) take up of end year flexibility entitlements (£7,100,000 of which £6,000,000 are administration costs) announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Table 6 of the 2000–01 Public Expenditure Outturn Paper (Cm 5243).

  (iii) a reduction of £220,000 (administration costs) due to a transfer to Lord Chancellor's Departments for costs associated with housing benefit and council tax benefit appeals.

  (iv) a reduction of £50,000 (administration costs) due to a transfer to Department of Social Development (Northern Ireland) towards the administration costs associated with winter fuel payments.

  (v) an increase in provision of £1,568,000 (administration costs) for the costs of administering allowance payments for work-based learning for adults in Scotland and Wales.

  (vi) a net increase of £1,691,000 (administration costs) due to a transfer from Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, for expenditure on New Deal for Communities (£1,631,000), reimbursement of salary costs of Department for Work and Pensions staff performing work on behalf of the Housing Corporation (£150,000) and a transfer £90,000 to Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for implementation costs at the Rent Service.

  (vii) an increase of £16,548,000 (of which £8,548,000 are administration costs) due to a transfer from Department for Education and Skills for expenditure within the Disability Rights Commission (£1,000,000), the cost of the Labour Force Survey (£1,050,000), the cost of accommodation where they are the minor occupier (£963,000), costs associated with Basic Skills (£7,000,000), a contribution towards the administrative costs of procurement (£24,000), a call on the Restructuring Fund (£6,000,000) and a transfer for costs associated with hardship payments to young people who would normally be receiving bridging allowance (£511,000).

  (viii) an increase of £158,000 (other current) for the expenditure on EU Twinning funded projects.

  (ix) a reduction of £20,000 (administration costs) due to a transfer to the Scottish Executive for costs associated with European Social Fund Verification and Audit Team.

  (x) an increase of £9,517,000 (administration costs) from the Employment Development Fund for JobCentre Plus and New Deal for Disabled People.

  (xii) a reduction in provision of £32,000 (other current) as a result of a transfer to the Scottish Executive for the Glasgow Coalition.

  (xiii) an increase of £1,095,000 as result of a transfer from Department of Health for the cost of collecting expenses associated with Road Traffic Accidents in England.

  503W

  (xiv) an increase of £13,704,000 (of which £12,991,000 are administration costs and £713,000 grants) for expenditure associated with services supplied by Department for Work and Pensions to other Government Departments on a repayment basis.

  (xv) an increase of £454,000 (of which £351,000 is administration costs and £103,000 other current) to correct an earlier transfer.

  (xvi) an increase of £28,242,000 (administration costs) as result of virement from other current/grants and an increase of £13,797,000 (capital) arising from virement from other current.

  (xvii) an increase in appropriation in aid of £26,202,000 (of which £14,518,000 are administration cost limit related).

  (xviii) an increase of £10,294,000 (other current) to reflect an increase in the number of secondments.

  (xix) a reduction of £2,900,000 (other current) as a result of a transfer to Annually Managed Expenditure.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) an increase of £6,400,000 (administration costs) from the Employment Development Fund for JobCentre Plus.

  (ii) An increase of £13,797,000 as a result of virement.

  All of these changes will either be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the quinquennial review of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. [36752]

  Mr. McCartney
  I am pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Brian Davis, formerly Chief Executive of the Nationwide Building Society, to lead this review. He will assist the internal DWP team in undertaking a detailed examination of all OPRA's functions and management structures and will draw on the views and comments of key stakeholders.

  The review will also draw on the findings of the Simplification Review, being undertaken by Alan Pickering, which is looking at ways of simplifying the legislation underpinning the private pensions regulatory system.

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases have been recorded since April 2001 of employers'(a) failure to set up a record of when they were due to pay contributions to personal pension schemes and (b) failure to pay such contributions on time; how many cases have been completed; and how much has been raised in fines. [33719]
  504W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) has received reports as follows:

  71,117 voluntary reports of employers who have failed to set up a record of payment contributions

  128,965 reports of late payments. Many of these reports will relate to the same employer.

  The new arrangements for reporting late payment of contributions began in April 2001. Opra's prime objective is to educate employers about their new responsibilities. Only when that fails does Opra consider sanctions. To date, Opra has written to over 35,000 employers. Opra has identified 100 employers who appear to be in serious breach and these cases will be considered for sanctions.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for(a) each age after 60 and (b) each sex the number claiming state basic retirement pension in the last year for which figures are available. [35576]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Number of men and women receiving a basic state retirement
  pension at 31 March 2001, by single year age

  Thousand

  Age

  Female

  Male

  All

  6,880.1

  4,079.9

  60

  220.1

  —

  61

  250.6

  —

  62

  260.7

  —

  63

  268.3

  —

  64

  273.4

  —

  65

  280.2

  259.9

  66

  278.4

  265.1

  67

  271.5

  255.4

  68

  271.1

  251.0

  69

  277.0

  252.0

  70

  283.8

  247.9

  71

  272.0

  237.5

  72

  265.1

  222.2

  73

  255.8

  210.0

  74

  258.8

  205.2

  75

  250.6

  196.5

  76

  240.0

  179.6

  77

  239.1

  167.1

  78

  230.4

  163.4

  79

  231.0

  152.7

  80

  233.4

  145.9

  81

  200.9

  123.7

  82

  141.0

  80.8

  83

  125.2

  70.1

  84

  139.3

  72.6

  85

  129.4

  63.0

  86

  125.7

  57.0

  87

  111.8

  47.0

  88

  93.8

  39.4

  89

  80.8

  30.4

  90

  68.3

  21.2

  91

  57.6

  17.0

  92

  46.7

  13.1

  93

  37.1

  9.5

  94

  28.8

  7.2

  95

  22.4

  4.8

  96

  15.7

  3.0

  97

  11.5

  2.4

  505W

  Number of men and women receiving a basic state retirement
  pension at 31 March 2001, by single year age

  Thousand

  Age

  Female

  Male

  98

  9.5

  1.7

  99

  6.1

  1.3

  100+

  17.0

  3.3

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the Pensions Strategy Computer System as at 31 March 2001.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many members of occupational pensions schemes were(a) contracted out and (b) contracted in to the state pension scheme in each of the last five years. [35574]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  1991

  1995

  Contracted out

  9.7

  9.0

  Contracted in

  1.0

  1.3

  Total

  10.7

  10.3

  Note:

  All numbers are in millions

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department "Occupational Pension Schemes 1991 and 1995".

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 665, on pensions and benefits, if he will make a statement on his assessment of the reasons for the decline in the number of (a) defined benefit and (b) defined contribution occupational pension schemes since the mid 1960s. [35584]

  Mr. McCartney
  The main factors contributing to the long-term decline in both the membership and number of occupational schemes are complex, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the House on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 665. Because of that last year the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asked Alan Pickering to conduct a wide-ranging review of the regulatory burden that is placed on pensions schemes. The review is due to report in the summer.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what publicity he plans in order to advise the general public of the implications of the equalisation of state retirement pension ages from 2010. [35573]

  Mr. McCartney
  Changes to the state pension age for women affect all women born after 5 April 1950, and the Government are committed to informing women about the changes.

  The changes continue to be publicised as part of the Department for Work and Pensions' marketing campaign on pensions education for people of working age. Information is also included in relevant pensions leaflets (including a specific leaflet on pensions for women) and on the Department's website. The website also features an interactive calculator where women can type in their date
  506W
  of birth to find out their state pension age and the date they will reach that. The Department's state pension forecast letters and the accompanying leaflet also show the recipient's state pension age and explain who is affected by the changes to the state pension age for women.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has(a) to introduce a one-stop shop service for access to disability benefits and services provided by his Department and (b) to encourage local authorities to adopt a similar approach in relation to their services. [35575]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This Government are committed to transform public services to make them more convenient and accessible. From April this year, JobCentre Plus and the Pension Service will take over from the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. JobCentre Plus will provide work related and benefit related services to customers of working age through a national network of integrated JobCentre Plus offices. Customers will be able to access the full range of disability benefits through JobCentre Plus offices. The Pension Service will provide a national network, working with local authorities, voluntary organisations and others to provide a service for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  An important initiative, which will help improve access to services including disability benefits for people over 60, is Care Direct, which is being piloted jointly by the Department of Health, Department for Work and Pensions and six local authorities. A key aim of Care Direct is to provide older people with a single gateway to get information about, and access to social care, health, housing and benefits, including disability benefits. The pilots are examining in a practical way, how central government, local government and the voluntary sector can work together to improve access to services.

  The six local authorities piloting Care Direct are now operational and will be evaluated later this year.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many young people aged 0 to 16 are in receipt of a disability benefit; and what percentage of households in which a young person is in receipt of such a benefit have an income of less than 60 per cent. of the median household income. [33010]

  Maria Eagle
  Such information as is available is as follows:

  At 31 August 2001, about 243,300 people aged 16 or under in Great Britain were receiving disability living allowance. The latest available estimates, which relate to 1999–00, indicate that the proportion of this group of young people who were living in households with below 60 per cent. of median income was 11 per cent. on a `Before Housing Costs' basis, or 14 per cent. 'After Housing Costs'.

  The Government have introduced several measures from April 2001 to help families with disabled children. The higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance has been extended to severely disabled children aged three or four, providing extra help to their families

  507W
  of £38.65 a week. In addition, the disabled child premium in the income-related benefits has been increased to £30 a week—£7.40 more than the normal uprating. Finally, the new disability income guarantee helps 33,000 families with severely disabled children, providing an extra £11.05 a week for each disabled child.

  Notes:

  1. The number of young people aged 0 to 16 in receipt of DLA is the latest information available, and is based on a 5 per cent. sample of disability living allowance (DLA) administrative records. The figure given is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Estimates relating to the percentage of individuals living in households with below 60 per cent. of median income have been taken from the "Households Below Average Income" (HBAI) series which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) data set. The FRS does not include Northern Ireland, and 1999–00 is the latest year for which data is available.

  3. HBAI estimates are sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, council tax band and a number of other demographic variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and variability in non-response. Percentages are given to the nearest whole percent.

  4. HBAI estimates have been presented on both a before and after housing costs basis to take into account variations in housing costs as is standard HBAI practice. No adjustment has been to household disposable income as used in HBAI to take into account any additional costs that may be incurred due to the illness or disability in question.

  Benefit Downrating (Hospital Patients)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the annual costs to his Department were in each of the last three years of administering the downrating of benefits during hospital stays. [35580]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Benefit Agency's administration costs are published in the Benefits Agency annual report and accounts 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library. The costs are not broken down to the detail required, but the current estimated staff costs for administering these rules is around £0.5 million. The information is not available for previous years.

  Job Trials
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the new rules for job trials effective from 8 April. [35577]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 685-86W.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in each of the last two years who were in receipt of the(a) middle and (b) higher care component of the disability living allowance in the (i) UK and (ii) London borough of Hillingdon were also eligible for the winter fuel allowance. [34525]

  Mr. McCartney
  The number of disability living allowance recipients receiving the higher or middle rate care component who are aged 60 or over in Great Britain and Hillingdon are given in the tables. Such people will be eligible for a winter fuel payment unless one of the exclusions applies.
  508W

  Number of DLA recipients in Great Britain 60 or over

  Thousand

  Year

  Higher rate care

  Middle rate care

  2000

  132.4

  183.6

  2001

  147.7

  199.6

  Number of DLA recipients in Hillingdon aged 60 or over

  Thousand

  Year

  Higher rate care

  Middle rate care

  2000

  *0.3

  0.6

  2001

  *0.4

  0.6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred

  2. Figures are at 31 August each year

  3. Figures under 500 marked '*' are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used only as a guide to the current situation

  Source:

  ASD Information Centre: 5 per cent. data

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [34659]

  Maria Eagle
  The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) has not yet been fully implemented but indications are that those parts of the DDA that are in force are proving to be effective and that disabled people are making use of it. Research indicates that awareness levels are increasing and changes are being made to employers' and service providers' policies and practices.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to provide an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 19 November 2001 [Ref 16113]. [35516]

  Mr. McCartney
  I provided an answer to hon. Member's question on 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 47W.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases have been dealt with in each year by the Minimum Income Guarantee helpline; and if he will make a statement. [33924]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested can be found in the table.

  Telephone calls dealt with by minimum income guarantee (MIG) claimline

  Number

  20001

  630,083

  20011

  190,231

  20022

  15,453

  1 January to December

  2 January only

  The MIG claim line has also processed a total of 408,508 freepost requests for a clerical MIG claim form since 29 March 2000.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to encourage participation by his Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33548]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department obtains the majority of fair trade goods from outsourced services, for example catering. The Department does not require its suppliers to take part in specific events. However, we expect them to be ethical in their business dealings and would expect them to support fair trade events of this sort.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [33231]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Department does not record information about television purchase in the form requested. The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Fraud
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what monitoring has been done to ascertain the effect of human rights legislation on the efficiency of investigating benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [29745]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department takes account of human rights legislation in the training, deployment and tasking of its fraud officers.

  Policy and organisational changes both inside and outside the Department have improved its efficiency in investigating benefit fraud. For example, the Professional Standards Unit undertakes an independent inspection of the standard of surveillance applications across the Department and the Department is subject to independent inspection by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner.

  It is not possible to identify separately the improvements in efficiency that are due specifically to human rights legislation.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the average weekly payment of housing benefit in each region and nation to tenants of(a) local authority tenants, (b) housing association tenants and (c) private tenants using the quarterly 100 per cent. counts taken on the last day of August (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [29710]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables.
  510W

  Average weekly housing benefit: by region and tenure, August 1999

  £ per week

  Local authority tenants

  Registered social landlord tenants1

  Private tenants

  Great Britain

  39.00

  53.00

  60.30

  North East

  33.00

  47.30

  50.20

  North West

  37.50

  48.70

  53.30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  31.70

  54.70

  49.80

  East Midlands

  34.90

  50.40

  46.80

  West Midlands

  37.00

  49.20

  54.80

  East

  40.30

  53.60

  59.10

  London

  55.50

  67.70

  86.10

  South East

  43.30

  56.30

  66.90

  South West

  39.10

  49.40

  56.20

  England

  40.00

  54.90

  61.40

  Wales

  36.80

  45.00

  50.30

  Scotland

  34.40

  38.80

  54.10

  Average Weekly Housing Benefit: by region and tenure—August 2000

  £ per week

  Local authority tenants

  Registered social landlord tenants1

  Private tenants

  Great Britain

  41.10

  54.50

  62.00

  North East

  35.20

  48.00

  51.40

  North West

  39.70

  49.10

  54.90

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  34.00

  55.80

  51.10

  East Midlands

  37.10

  50.40

  48.90

  West Midlands

  38.80

  49.40

  56.40

  East

  42.90

  54.80

  60.90

  London

  58.00

  71.50

  90.40

  South East

  45.80

  57.70

  69.40

  South West

  41.00

  50.80

  58.20

  England

  42.30

  56.20

  63.20

  Wales

  38.80

  47.30

  51.40

  Scotland

  35.80

  40.80

  55.50

  Average weekly housing benefit: by region and tenure—August 2001

  £ per week

  Local authority tenants

  Registered social landlord tenants1

  Private tenants

  Great Britain

  44.00

  57.20

  65.30

  North East

  37.30

  47.40

  53.70

  North West

  42.00

  51.90

  57.10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  37.20

  57.10

  53.40

  East Midlands

  39.80

  52.70

  51.90

  West Midlands

  41.60

  50.70

  59.90

  East

  45.40

  58.30

  63.90

  London

  62.10

  76.30

  98.70

  South East

  49.30

  61.10

  73.70

  South West

  43.00

  53.90

  61.50

  England

  45.50

  58.60

  66.60

  Wales

  41.00

  50.80

  53.80

  Scotland

  37.50

  45.20

  59.00

  Notes:

  1. Figures for housing benefit paid to registered social landlord tenants include housing association and non-housing association accommodation. Separate data on housing benefit paid to housing association tenants only are not collected.

  511W

  2. The data refer to recipients of housing benefit which may be a single person, a member of a couple or a member of a family.

  3. Average amounts have been rounded to the nearest ten pence.

  4. Figures for authorities who have failed to respond have been estimated.

  5. The figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System. Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload count taken in August of each year.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if proposals for public service agreement targets for the reduction of sickness absence rates were discussed and agreed with the Cabinet Office by June 1999, as referred to on page 22 of the 2001 departmental report. [19015]

  Mr. McCartney
  Yes.

  Child Support Agency
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact he expects the reforms of the working of the Child Support Agency will have on(a) the time taken to assess new claims and (b) the time devoted to pursuing non-compliant fathers. [25421]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The new child support system will be straightforward and easy to understand. The simpler method for making a maintenance calculation will take less time, allowing the Child Support Agency more time to ensure their clients are compliant.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what action he has taken as a consequence of the European Court judgment of 25 February 1999 in the case of Swaddling, with special reference to British nationals returning to Britain from South Africa; [30950]

  (2) what plans he has to review the habitual residence test. [30951]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In its judgment in the Swaddling case, the European Court of Justice made it clear that people returning from a European member state to re-establish ties in the United Kingdom can be treated as habitually resident on their return.

  Following this judgment we reviewed the habitual residence test and decided to extend this important principle to people returning from any country overseas to re-establish ties here. These measures have resulted in fairer access to income-related benefits, while ensuring security against possible abuse of the benefits system by those with no real links to the United Kingdom.

  We keep all our policies under review but have no current plans to change the habitual residence test.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to ensure that non-screened areas in Jobcentre Plus offices will be staffed by those who volunteer for the position. [30342]
  512W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus will be delivered by our staff in a predominantly unscreened environment. Detailed staffing arrangements are a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus and his managers.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to change the Office of Water Services departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36857]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Ofwat DEL will be reduced by £2,000 from £35,000 to £33,000 and the administration costs limits will be decreased by £302,000 from £11,846,000 to £11,544,000. With the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  -302

  300

  New DEL

  -567

  600

  Of which:

  Voted

  -567

  600

  Non-voted

  1—

  1—

  1 Not applicable

  The £302,000 reduction in the resource element of the DEL arises from the transfer of £2,000 resources to the Cabinet Office for the fast stream recruitment and a transfer to a capital of £300,000.

  The increase of £300,000 in the capital element of the DEL arises from an investment in the development financial model for the periodic review. This will be used in the next review of prices and will be shared with the industry.

  There has been a change in accounting policy for OFWAT treatment of VAT. The previous accounting policy meant that VAT was Cfered. The new accounting policy is that the Department now accounts, net of VAT. This has no impact on the DEL. There will be a reduction in consolidated fund extra receipts of £135,000.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to change the departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [36856]

  Margaret Beckett
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' DEL will be increased by £368,615,000 from £2,590,774,000 to £2,959,389,000, and the administration costs limit will be increased by £149,998,000 from £503,649,000 to £653,647,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resource

  Change

  +359,167

  New DEL

  2,443,809

  513W

  £000

  of which:

  Voted

  1,452,453

  Non-voted

  991,356

  Capital

  Change

  +9,448

  New DEL

  515,580

  of which:

  Voted

  435,281

  Non-voted

  80,299

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from: (i) a draw down of £335,900,000 from the DEL Reserve for various FMD related expenditure, (ii) a reduction of £11,300,000 in expenditure on the Factortame litigation, (iii) a take-up of £8,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund, (iv) a take-up of £271,000 from the Invest to Save Budget, (v) a transfer from DfES of £500,000 for the school milk scheme, (vi) various MOG transfers from DTLR for £6,683,000, (vii) a transfer from DTLR of £40,908,000 for the Rural Development Agency, (viii) transfers from various OGDs of £3,176,000 for the Energy Efficiency Best Practice measure, (ix) two transfers from HMC&E for £94,000, (x) a net transfer of £41,000 to the DTLR for work by the MCA, (xi) a transfer to NAWAD of £40,000 for the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme, (xii) a transfer to DTLR of £30,000 for sea bed rehabilitation, (xiii) a transfer to SEERAD of £6,300,000 for the British Waterways Board, (xiv) a transfer to DFID of £2,000,000 for the Environment Know-How Fund, (xv) a transfer of £345,000 to the Highways Agency for canal work, plus, (xvi) a reduction of £8,317,000 in the DEL resource budget stemming from an adjustment in the Winter Supplementary.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from: (i) a take-up of £65,000 from the Invest to Save budget, (ii) a transfer to SEERAD of £4,233,000 for the British Waterways Board, (iii) a transfer of £487,000 from DTLR for emissions projects, (iv) a take-up of £700,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund, plus, (v) an increase of £12,429,000 in the DEL capital budget stemming from an adjustment in the Winter Supplementary.

  There will also be a net switch of £21,875,000 from non-estimate funds on to the estimate.

  Increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers and charged to the DEL Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the Forestry Commission's departmental expenditure limit for 2001–02. [36854]

  Mr. Morley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Forestry Commission's DEL will be reduced by £4,644,000 from £69,809,000 to £65,165,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table.
  514W

  £

  Resources

  Changes

  -4,644

  New DEL

  65,165

  of which:

  Voted

  62,512

  Non-voted

  2,653

  Capital

  Changes

  No changes

  New DEL

  —

  Of which:

  Voted

  —

  Non-voted

  —

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the winding up of the Forestry Commission Pension Scheme (FCPS) after 30 November 2001 and the transfer of its future liabilities to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The £4,644,000 reduction is the unused element of the net expenditure of the FCPS included in the Main Estimate.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will report on the outcome of the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review; and if she will make a statement. [36858]

  Mr. Morley
  I am pleased to announce that the report "Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review—Report to Ministers by the Review Steering Group" has been published today along with a consultation document seeking views on the steering group's recommendations and conclusions and how these might be taken forward. I am placing copies in the Library of the House.

  The steering group's report assessed a number of options for change including additional sources of funding and a broad-based regional model to provide a single funding stream. Suggestions for short-term changes include giving the Environment Agency responsibility for all watercourses that present a significant flood risk and on combining and consolidating capital grant and revenue support grant to the agency, possibly in the form of central grant allocations.

  Elsewhere, the report recommends continued reliance on the existing flood management strategic framework to monitor achievement of the Government's policies and priorities.

  The Government have agreed to consult on the recommendations in the report. This provides a unique opportunity to consider provision of the flood and coastal defence service from first principles and I look forward to receiving the views of interested parties. I will keep Parliament informed of developments.

  Ofwat
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to ensure that Ofwat improves its serviceability criteria. [34070]
  515W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government continue to work with the Office of Water Services (Ofwat) the quality regulators and the water industry to take forward discussions on serviceability and asset maintenance.

  Ofwat develops measures of companies' serviceability to customers. Ofwat is reviewing its measures of the serviceability of water and sewerage company assets. A consultation paper on improved serviceability indicators was issued in November 2001. The consultation period ended on 8 February 2002. Ofwat will also consult on its approach to capital maintenance in the spring.

  In its consultation paper on the approach to the periodic review of price limits for 2005–10, to be published in October 2002, Ofwat will also set out how it proposes to take account of serviceability and capital maintenance.

  Water Sports
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Environment Agency is taking to encourage more access agreements to moving water for canoeists in England and Wales. [34959]

  Alun Michael
  The agency has produced a guidance booklet "Agreeing Access to water for Canoeing (July 1999)", which sets out the background to property and 516W
  access rights and how to move forward in the development of access agreements. The guidance is provided free of charge to interested parties. The agency will also respond to requests for assistance in arranging access agreements.

  Sand Dredging (Erosion)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent guidelines she has issued to protect sand beaches from excessive erosion caused by the actions of the sand dredging industry. [35634]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  Draft policy guidance on the extraction of sand and gravel from the English sea bed was published for public consultation in February 2001. This explains the existing requirement for a coastal impact study to be undertaken as part of the application procedure to obtain a licence to dredge for minerals. These studies need to consider, among other matters, the potential for the extraction activity to cause coastal erosion. If this suggests unavoidable risk of coastal erosion, the application is refused.

  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for dredging in Welsh waters.

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.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend a meeting of the Cabinet tomorrow, Thursday, 14th February, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Messages from the Queen
Lord Luce: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships two messages from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The first message is as follows:
"I thank you sincerely for your expression of sympathy in the sad loss which I have sustained by the death of my dear sister, Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, and for your condolences to my mother, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. We are deeply moved by the warmth of your condolences, and your thoughts and prayers are a source of comfort to us at this time of personal sorrow".
The second message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the draft Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House on 8th January.
"I will comply with your request".

Fluoridated School Milk
2.38 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that accurate and balanced information is provided to parents whose children are being offered fluoridated school milk, to help them make an informed choice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, there are currently seven fluoridated milk schemes at schools in the North West and Yorkshire. When a scheme is under consideration, health service staff visit the school and explain the objectives of the scheme both to parents and staff. Leaflets and letters are then issued to parents, which indicate that children
1088
who are taking fluoride tablets or drops do not need fluoridated milk and that milk without the addition of fluoride will remain available.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that in Manchester, which is one of the areas concerned—I am sure that it is not an isolated example—although the chief dental officer is offering balanced information on the subject, the leader of the council has asked that so-called dental milk be positively marketed? Is the noble Lord aware that it is almost impossible to do those two things simultaneously? Is he further aware that little mention is made in the literature of the many scientific experiments throughout the world that show that fluoride, as well as being poisonous—as so many substances are—does not, in fact, reduce tooth decay?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a matter for the schools and the local authority. I have seen the leaflet that the NHS issued to parents, and I believe that it gives relevant and correct information. I am happy to place copies of it in the Library.
With regard to the wider question about the effects of fluoridation raised by the noble Lord, it is worth making the point that the Government asked York University to undertake a robust review of all the evidence available. In relation to the main assertions that have been made about fluoridation, the review found that there was no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence of or mortality from, for example, bone cancers and thyroid cancers. At the same time, because of the need for a robust evidence base, we have asked the Medical Research Council to consider whether more research should be undertaken.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as president of the British Fluoridation Society. Can my noble friend confirm the British Dental Association view that targeted fluoridation is one of the best ways of ensuring that children grow up with strong, healthy teeth? The direct fluoridation of water particularly benefits people such as those whom my noble friend knows well in the city of Birmingham. Can my noble friend confirm the benefits to those who either have access to fluoridated milk or participate in the Government's "Brushing for life" scheme?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords. the most striking figures that I have are from a 1993–94 survey that, I believe, has been recently repeated, showing the same pattern. The survey shows that in the south of Birmingham, for instance, the average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth for a five year-old child is 0.92, compared to 3.45 in central Manchester, which is non-fluoridated. That shows the effect of fluoridation in the water supply and the other schemes mentioned by my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not true that many substances taken in excess are poisonous and that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord

1089
Beaumont, in his response to the Minister's original Answer, that fluoride is poisonous would indicate a dosage entirely different from that used in any fluoridated water scheme? Is the Minister aware that in California a 1 per cent majority vote resulted in the introduction of fluoridated water, containing the properly controlled measure of fluoride for dental benefit and no disbenefit? However, many people declared that they would use only bottled water from then on. When an analysis was made of the bottled water, it showed much higher levels of fluoride in that water than would ever have been permitted in fluoridated water. Does he agree that, worldwide, the opinion is that fluoride is extremely beneficial and that in this country it would do much to narrow the gap between the more affluent and those in greater need, whose teeth are much worse?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I find the noble Baroness wholly persuasive on this matter.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, many of us are broadly in favour of the fluoridation of both milk and water. The Minister mentioned the University of York report. Is he aware that it is now some 13 months since its publication in 2000? Is it not now high time that the MRC made its recommendations with regard to the high-quality research that needs to be done? Can the Minister state precisely what research will be entered into? After all, both the proponents and opponents of fluoridation badly need and want that research to be carried out.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the MRC has been asked to advise us on the current scientific evidence regarding the health effects of water fluoridation and to consider whether further research in this area is required to inform public health policy. No doubt the noble Lord will be reassured to learn that the MRC is due to report to the department in the spring.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, should not the Government respect the very real concerns felt by some people about the effects of fluoridation? After all, in line with lead, fluoride is poisonous if taken in overdose. Its effects depend on dosage, thus if children use fluoridated toothpaste and drink fluoridated water and then perhaps drink fluoridated milk as well, then they are at risk of affecting their thyroid glands. A good deal of research has demonstrated low-level effects on the thyroid which are not good in the long term. This is an area in which further research needs to be undertaken. Should we not respect both sides of the argument and find out what is the truth?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course we will listen with care to the advice given by the MRC concerning research. However, I have to say that I think that the noble Countess has rather exaggerated the potential ill-effects of fluoride. I think that the balance of evidence is quite clear. The University of
1090
York review, which was very robust, could find no evidence of the allegations that have frequently been made about fluoridation. I do believe that fluoridation could be one of the most effective health measures to be developed in this country.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of my noble friend Lady Uddin.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I am deeply grateful. In light of the debate held in the House on Monday evening on health matters among minority communities, does my noble friend recognise that a significant population in minority communities does not receive information on issues such as the one raised in this Question? Can he tell the House how he will ensure that sufficient accessible information and advocacy with regard to this matter are made available to citizens living in areas such as Manchester, Birmingham and Yorkshire?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I have evidence to show that, on average, Asian children have 2.9 decayed teeth, while white children have an average of 1.6 such teeth. A study in Birmingham showed that only 28 per cent of Asian children were registered with a dentist compared with 68 per cent of white children. I believe that those figures are replicated in other minority ethnic groups. It is clear that local health authorities need to develop strategies on oral health which ensure that disadvantaged groups are targeted.

Tenancy Deposit Scheme
2.47 p.m.
Lord Best Lord Best asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now extend the tenancy deposit scheme for a further period.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, for two years the Government have supported, as a pilot, a voluntary tenancy deposit scheme. Although more time is needed to prove that it could operate as a self-financing scheme, its slow take-up makes a strong case for legislation on tenancy deposits. We propose supporting the pilot for two more years to establish, first, the basis for a self-financing national voluntary scheme and, secondly, the extent to which membership of this or similar schemes would need to be backed up by legislation.
The Government will consult on what legislation might encompass. For example, it might prevent the use of tenancy deposits where they are not safeguarded by schemes like the pilot or by regulating them in some

1091
other way. Landlords are very strongly advised to lend their support to the pilot now, so that in advance of legislation there is a proven alternative to regulating the use of tenancy deposits.
Lord Best: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very positive response which will be greatly appreciated by organisations representing not only tenants, but landlords as well. Does he agree that, in order to protect those tenants where the landlord does not wish to join a voluntary scheme and receive the benefit of having disputes resolved by the Independent Housing Ombudsman service, it is likely that a mandatory scheme will become necessary in due course?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we should see what are the effects of the coming two years. It is extremely important to encourage as many landlords as possible to join the scheme.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I concur with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Many people working in the world of housing will welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said today. Is the noble and learned Lord familiar with a scheme operating in East Anglia? All noble Lords will know how difficult it is for students to find adequate accommodation. At the University of East Anglia, which falls into one of the pilot areas, students have been encouraged to go to landlords who are part of the scheme. What has happened is that, of course, other landlords have then joined the scheme. Will the Minister look closely at this result? It appears that not only would such an approach help the scheme to expand quickly, it would also be a great help to our students.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the East Anglian scheme, which has worked well. It is precisely the kind of scheme that makes life a lot easier between landlords and tenants.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's reply will certainly encourage many landlords to continue to participate in the scheme and encourage new ones to join. But, just as there are bad and rogue tenants, there are often bad and rogue landlords, and until we have legislation making the scheme compulsory there will always be someone on the margins who is not benefiting. Will the noble and learned Lord seek to introduce legislation at an earlier rather than later date?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I note what the noble Earl said. It is a view shared by many people in the housing world. Extending the pilot for two years will give us a chance to see what is the appropriate course. As I said in the second part of my Answer, we will consult now on what the legislation might encompass.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, do the Government believe that a national statutory scheme could be run
1092
without a requirement for the registration of landlords and agents? Does the Minister agree that agents who handle their tenants' money should he registered with the local authority?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to whether or not we would need to register landlords in order to have an effective compulsory deposit scheme. I do not know the answer. That is one of the issues that the consultation will encompass.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the income generated by the custodial option scheme is likely to be more than is necessary to fund the scheme? Is he further aware that in New South Wales, for example, the surplus income is used to subsidise schemes such as the rent guarantee scheme, which enables homeless people or people on lower incomes to gain access to housing?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the Australian example given by the noble Earl. As to whether there will be enough money from the custodial scheme, one of the findings that has emerged from the pilot is that it has not yet been proved that the schemes overall are sell-financing. We need to look more at that issue before decisions are made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister appreciates the general welcome given to the idea that people who pay deposits should, in one way or another, receive protection. Will he continue with this and be very careful about abandoning further positive action because of slow take-up? The slow take-up could well be improved over time, particularly if there is some kind of campaign to draw the scheme to the attention of landlords and tenants.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I referred to the slow take-up, but we are continuing with the scheme for another two years. There are signs that the slow start is now leading to a process where more people are taking up the scheme. I agree that giving more publicity to this kind of scheme— including to landlords, who get a real benefit from it—will increase the take-up still further.

Asylum Seekers: Detention
2.53 p.m.
Lord Chan Lord Chan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their policy is towards holding asylum seekers in United Kingdom prisons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government have pursued a strategy of detaining those held solely under immigration powers in dedicated long-term Immigration Service facilities. Part of that strategy has been the opening of three new removal centres towards the end of last year. To this

1093
end, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 3rd October last year that he was committed to cease using Prison Service accommodation for holding immigration detainees beyond January 2002. I am pleased to say that that commitment has been met.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, no mention has been made of Walton prison in Liverpool, which I have visited. Can the Minister confirm that immigration detainees are today being held in dedicated prison establishments? Will he explain the difference between a prison and an Immigration Service removal centre where asylum seekers are detained, particularly in terms of the cost per prisoner or immigration detainee?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is important to get the facts right first. There are no immigration detainees being held solely under immigration rules in any prison at the present time. Whatever the date the noble Lord visited Walton, there are no immigration detainees being held there today. There have not been any detainees in any prison since the middle of January. There are five dedicated immigration removal centres—previously called detention centres. There are two former prisons—Haslar and Lindholme—which are now removal centres and have been legally such since 8th February. It will take time to get all the facilities organised on the scale of our new purpose-built removal centres, but for solely immigration purposes there are no asylum seekers or immigration detainees in prisons. There could be occasionally in Northern Ireland, where there are no dedicated immigration removal facilities, but anyone held there has the option of coming to the mainland and going to one of the Immigration Service establishments. That is not to say that there are no asylum seekers in prison, but if they are in prison they are there because of non-immigration related offences.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the discontinuation of holding asylum seekers in prisons, but who is responsible for making sure that the rules in detention and holding centres are adequately observed? Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to rule 4, which is a compact that allows the detainees to know their rights in detention, and to rule 9, which places a duty on the Home Secretary to ensure that the reasons for detention are adequately explained to the detainees every month. In many of the detention centres of which I know, these rules are not properly observed. Will the Minister ensure, particularly in relation to the Gatwick detention centre, that these rules are adequately observed and that such information is passed to the detainees at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall check into what the noble Lord has said. I am not aware—I stand to be corrected later—of any complaint about people in removal centres not being made aware of the rules. As to who is responsible, the Immigration Department is
1094
responsible. Even though HMPs Haslar and Lindholme are managed by the Prison Service, they are under the direct operational control of the Immigration Department. To that end, it is my department and the Immigration Department that are responsible. I am not aware of any difficulties at Tinsley House. I have visited all the dedicated removal centres and that matter has not been drawn to my attention. But I shall check on it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when HMP Haslar moved from Prison Service to Home Office control, what changes took place among the staff, and what retraining took place if the same staff are still in the same establishment?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, re-training is on-going. The staff were not necessarily moved; they came under different control and a different set of rules. It is the facilities for the people being detained that have changed. The rules have changed from prison rules to detention rules. I appreciate that it is also a change for prison officers to move from operating under prison rules to operating under detention rules. Therefore retraining is taking place. It will necessarily take a short while before the culture at Haslar and Lindholme is the same as the culture at Harmondsworth, Tinsley, Dungavel and Yarl's wood, but the legal change took place on 8th February.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are difficulties in gaining access to the detention centre rules, particularly at Yarl's wood. While a copy of the rules may be lodged in the library there, there is not a notice on the publicly available notice board seen by the inmates that tells them how to access those rules in any language, even English.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no one is detained in a removal centre without knowing why they are there. I must make it clear that they are not picked up and taken there without any knowledge of why they are there in the first place. As to the rules not being publicly available, I shall check on that matter. Yarl's wood is currently coming on stream. It is not fully operational in the sense that it is full to capacity and will not be so for a few months. It will have a large capacity, some 900. I visited the establishment during its early days when there were just over 100 people there and the rest of the facility was still being brought into operation. But, as I said, as far as I am aware, no one has made any complaint to my office about the rules not being made available. The noble Lord has done so on the Floor of the House and I shall check on the matter.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I recently visited Harmondsworth in my capacity as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal? We were shown in very great detail all the procedures that are undertaken. It was extremely impressive. If all the centres are to be like Harmondsworth, then it is about time that the Home Office was congratulated on getting something right.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, on behalf of the staff and all those involved, I am grateful to the noble Countess for that vote of thanks. I, too, have visited Harmondsworth. It was built from scratch, from the signing of the contract to people being housed there, in about 10 months. It is an excellent example of what can be achieved as a result of partnership and cooperation. The facilities are excellent. It is necessarily a detention centre. It has been renamed a "removal" centre and that is what it is, not a prison but a removal centre. Therefore, people are not free to come and go. But we do our best to make people's stay there as fruitful and useful as possible and we try to make it less onerous. The centre is certainly a vast improvement on the previous arrangements.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following the incident last week in which the brakes of a Eurostar train were tampered with, putting passengers in danger, is the Minister aware that many people believe that criminals such as those involved should be put in gaol? Is it not a fact that asylum seekers from eastern Europe cannot now be fleeing from political persecution? They may be economic migrants; but they may also be criminals who are escaping punishment in their own country. Will the Minister take that into account in future policy-making relating to asylum seekers?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, there are occasions when we return people to their own country on the basis that their main claim was fear of prosecution rather than persecution. Taking an axe to sever brake cables on a moving train is outrageous. It is a threat to everyone concerned—those on the train as well as the clandestines. The matter is being looked into and I shall be having discussions later this week with the transport Minister.

Zimbabwe: Presidential Election
3.2 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they are taking to ensure that the forthcoming presidential elections in Zimbabwe are both free and fair.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government cannot ensure that the election in Zimbabwe is free and fair. However, we can, and are, doing our best to ensure maximum scrutiny of the election process, including the deployment of a European Union team on our terms. We remain determined that sanctions will be triggered if EU observers are refused entry or if they cannot work effectively. We shall continue to argue for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. We are working with regional and international partners, the EU, the United States, the Commonwealth and the South African Development Community.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, does. she agree that with all the murder and mayhem, the harassment, the breaking up of opposition rallies, the dubious registration procedures and the exclusion of the media, including the BBC, the concepts of freedom and fairness in the forthcoming election have gone out of the window? Does she accept that the Article 96 procedure which the EU has been trying to follow seems to be getting into increasing difficulties. and that the whole EU policy is in doubt and looks rather like a broken reed? Does the Minister share with other people the view that it is time for the coalition of willing democracies, including the United States and Australia and some members of the Commonwealth, if not all, to come together to take decisive action to target with sanctions those who are responsible for these horrors, to prevent this tragedy turning into a paralysis of the whole of southern Africa?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said. The situation is extremely grave. The noble Lord has pointed out the level of violence: there have indeed been 16 or 17 political murders in Zimbabwe since the beginning of the year. It is because the situation is so grave that I have given an unequivocal Answer on our determination over EU sanctions if our observers are not given access to carry out their work effectively. It is why I have given an unequivocal Answer about our continuing determination to argue for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. In the European Union, the COREPER is meeting this afternoon to discuss the latest moves by Zimbabwe over the exclusion of some EU observers. There will he a GAC next Monday, and we shall meet again prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting; namely, at a Commonwealth ministerial meeting on 1st March in Australia.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister mentioned some of the recent atrocities in Zimbabwe, which include the torturing of three opposition MPs campaigning just before the weekend; the fishing out of the river of the body of the youth leader in Masvingo province who had, of course, been drowned; and most recently the petrol bombing of the one independent newspaper in Harare, the Daily News. In the light of all that, will the Minister reconsider the possibility of sanctions being directed not merely to protect EU monitors but at those who are attacking democratic opposition forces in Zimbabwe? In particular, is the Minister aware—as I understand from sources about which I have informed the Foreign Secretary—that President Mugabe's government now regard the threats from the EU and the Commonwealth as empty hot air? In the light of that, will she consider whether specific sanctions, such as the freezing of the assets of the administration, might be imposed now, before the election campaign is completed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated, I believe that these matters will be under discussion in the EU not only today but next Monday.

1097
They will be under discussion in the Commonwealth at the earliest possible opportunity, on 1st March, before the elections take place. Of course I agree with the noble Baroness about some of the disgraceful actions that have been perpetrated in Zimbabwe. What decent person could not agree with the forceful point that she has made? However, I believe that the sanctions being considered will not be targeted at Zimbabweans in general—I am sure that we all agree that the population of that country has suffered appallingly in terms of what has happened to its economy, the growth in unemployment and the spread of AIDS and other dreadful diseases. We hope that any sanctions are indeed, as the noble Baroness said, targeted at those who have perpetrated these wrongs.
Lord Acton: My Lords, for 14 years I was married to the Zimbabwean civil rights campaigner, Judith Todd. I must also declare that I have many Shona, Ndebele and other, white, friends in that country. Is my noble friend aware that, yesterday, my former wife's 93 year-old father, Sir Garfield Todd, former Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and a former Zimbabwean senator, issued a statement in which he announced that he had been informed that he had been deprived of his citizenship and his right to vote? Can my noble friend add anything to this?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the statement issued yesterday by Sir Garfield Todd. After 67 years as a citizen of Zimbabwe, he has been told that he is no longer a citizen and that he has been disfranchised. It is a very moving statement. With your Lordships' permission, I think it right to place a copy in the Library so that your Lordships may read it for yourselves. I draw attention to the fact that Sir Garfield has said that, come what may, in March he will be going to the polling station to claim his right as a very senior citizen of Zimbabwe to cast his ballot for good against evil.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I understand that the Commonwealth is able to send only about 30 observers because it has no money to send more. Is there no way in which this country could pay for many more Commonwealth observers? Even at this late stage, from the point of view of the people, observers are extremely important.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that observers are enormously important. I point out to the noble Baroness that it is not only the Commonwealth which will be sending observers. There will also be observers from SADC, who I hope will have untrammelled access to the conduct of the elections. I am unaware of any restrictions on the numbers of Commonwealth observers. Therefore, I am surprised at the noble Baroness's remark. I shall make inquiries and write to the noble Baroness with any additional information that I can supply on the question of Commonwealth observers. I point out that these will not be the only observers of what is happening during the Zimbabwean presidential election.

HSBC Investment Banking Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— ( The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Milford Haven Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness O'Cathain and the Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consignia
3.11 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain rose to call attention to the future of Consignia, its financial problems and the services it provides; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a highly topical debate. In fact, it is much more topical than I would ever have thought when I tabled the Motion. Consignia and several serious issues concerning that organisation are commanding headlines and many column inches in our daily dose of media. The organisation's main financial problem, of course, is that it is currently losing €1 million daily and that it is just about to announce, or so we are told, significant job losses. The main issue concerning the services that Consignia provides is the very recent publication by the Postal Services Commission—known as Postcomm—of proposals to liberalise and open up Consignia to competition.
The debate's additional topicality is due to the fact that the leaders of Britain's 145,000 postal workers are meeting today to decide whether to take action, which could take the form of anything from work to rule to a national strike, as part of a campaign to win a 5 per cent pay rise. Indeed, the announcement of how the Communication Workers Union intends to react to

1099
the overwhelming vote for industrial action is likely to be announced even as we take part in this debate. As I said, little did I know how topical the debate would be when I tabled the Motion.
Morale among Consignia's staff is said to be at rock bottom, as is manifest by the recent decision of postal workers. However, the decision is not due solely to the demand for £300 per week. There is also widespread frustration that Consignia seems to have reneged on proposals in the document Way Forward to introduce five-day per week working by the end of 2001. The latter point has resulted in resentment that major sorting offices operate a five-day work roster whereas staff in local post offices who organise the collection and delivery of mail are still on a six-day roster.
The users of the postal service are deeply concerned not only about the threat of industrial action, but also that the Postcomm proposals currently being introduced, but with a relatively tight time-frame for completion, will put the service's future in jeopardy.
Almost inevitably, having been a monopoly supplier in the public sector for longer than probably any other nationalised industry ever, Consignia has an overburdened cost structure, a reluctance to modernise its work practices and a general inertia leading to a wish to continue doing things as they have always been done. To the "concerned outsider", it seems that little importance is placed on producing a radical long-term strategy for the organisation.
The National Audit Office report entitled Opening the Post, published almost three weeks ago, is a brilliant exposé on the enormity of the risks posed when a monopoly nationalised industry is effectively opened up while remaining in the public sector. A daunting task awaits. However, try as I do to be positive about the opportunities facing Consignia my analysis of the National Audit Office report has left me believing that if the plan fails there will have to be state handouts for Consignia.
Are the Government sure that they want to go ahead along the lines proposed and within the suggested lime frame? Do the Government subscribe to the view that there might have to be a "universal service support fund", as mentioned in paragraph 2.39 of the NAO report? Indeed, do the Government have confidence that Postcomm's proposals will lead to Consignia's return to profit? I ask the Minister those questions not to score political points but because of a genuine concern that the proposed changes will neither improve service to customers nor return Consignia to profit.
The Postcomm proposals have caused much concern: first, among some of us who wonder whether the universal service will suffer and whether there will be a mad rush into cherry-picking, with the inevitable consequence that a residue of non-viable services is left with Consignia; secondly, among service users, particularly in rural areas; and, thirdly, among the elderly who rely on the local post office for pension and other benefits. In small villages, post offices are sometimes combined with small shops. The proposals therefore also concern non-car drivers in rural areas
1100
who rely effectively on their "corner shop" to obtain shopping items. Finally—although they are one of the most important group—the proposals concern Consignia staff.
Allan Leighton, the chairman of Consignia, who has an enviable track record as an astute and successful business leader, has described Postcomm's plans as,
"death by a thousand cuts".
Although that language may seem somewhat exaggerated, given its source, the comment must cause unease among all of us who rely on an efficient and effective postal service and particularly among those of us who have a responsibility to ensure, so far as we can, that proposed legislation meets its objectives.
My view may strike some of your Lordships as an attempt to stem the tide of progress by putting a small finger in the dike and as a display of antediluvian tendencies. Others will feel that I am ignoring the fact that much of the business that previously relied on the provision of a good postal service is now transacted at split-second speed through cyberspace. I yield to no one in my admiration for developments in electronic business, and I am a daily user of e-mails, faxes and telephones, both conventional and cell, but all those are adjuncts to daily use of the postal system, not a substitution for it.
Without an efficient postal system my personal productivity would be greatly impaired. Indeed, I think that it would be extremely difficult to find anyone who would say that they could do without the post. One has only to remember the inconvenience and upset caused by previous postal strikes to realise the importance of the issue. Sadly, one does not have to go far back in the recesses of one's memory to recall such times.
Postcomm has two main statutory duties under the Postal Services Act 2000: to ensure the provision of a universal postal system at an affordable and geographically uniform price; and to further the interests of postal users wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition. Although both aims are worthy and desirable, I worry whether they are achievable without enormous cost in terms of deteriorating service levels, particularly in relation to achieving the universal postal service obligation.
Sometimes I fear that we are guilty of seeing everything as a much hyped-up extension of' our own experience. Those who live in the big cities have the expectation that their mail will reach them early in the morning, and those in rural areas have the same expectation. However, neither group really analyses the practical consequences of that expectation.
I have some experience in the sphere of statutory obligation to provide a universal service throughout England and Wales, and I know that providing such a service is not easy. When I was managing director of the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales—which is now defunct as it was ultra vires with the Treaty of Rome; I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is not in his place—I had the responsibility

1101
of ensuring that every drop of milk produced by every cow in England and Wales was collected daily from each farm.
The milk had to be tested and sold on to the dairies and creameries to provide fresh milk on the table and the raw material for the producers or processors of cheese and butter. I refer to providing fresh milk on the table to 19 million households which was a logistic exercise in itself. There, I am afraid, the similarity ends in so far as there were only some 30,000 or so dairy farms, not 21 million establishments waiting eagerly for their mail. But that experience has given me some inkling of the highly complex nature of the logistics of postal collection and distribution.
Under the Postcomm proposals, opening up competition to the most profitable sectors of Consignia—namely, bulk mail above 4,000 items—from this year is probably just a matter of weeks away. Following that, the next most profitable part of the market—namely, bulk mail of smaller weight—will be opened up and then by 2006 the whole market will be free to all corners. It does not take the brain of a nuclear scientist to conclude that if an organisation is deprived of about 60 per cent of its most profitable market the remaining 40 per cent could be seriously non-viable financially.
I should like to ask the Minister with his great experience in issues of marginal costings whether he believes that it is possible to cream off the best revenue-producing services and still maintain a profitable universal service. Postcomm states that Consignia,
"should be able to withstand the introduction of competition".
But will it? Indeed, I do not feel terribly comforted by the word "should".
A desktop exercise shows that Consignia loses money and has a less efficient postal service than many other countries. It is a fact that it loses money, but is it correct that it is a less efficient postal service than that of many other countries. Are we in danger of comparing apples with pears? How many of the more efficient postal services have Saturday delivery? Certainly, I know that nowhere in North America or, indeed, in Ireland are there Saturday deliveries.
How many of those same efficient postal services have the added complication of providing both a first and second-class mail service? I should like to ask the Minister whether any assessment has been made of the financial implications of having a two-tier postal charge. Certainly my information, gleaned from people employed by Consignia, indicates that there is a massive on-cost associated with two-tier pricing. I refer to additional sorting, placing second-class stamped mail to one side, going out delivering the first-class mail, coming back and then going out later to deliver the second-class mail and retracing the same journeys. Why not have just one price stamp? I am sure that even I could come up with a suggested price which
1102
would result in similar revenue but involve much lower costs. It is interesting that the NAO report states at paragraph 24, on page 9:
"For most customers of postal services the quality of the service they receive is more important than the price".
I am sure that every single one of your Lordships has ideas about how the postal service should be and could be improved, but I wonder whether there are longstanding rules and regulations which hamper Consignia in its drive for greater efficiency. I give just one example. How is it that in every other major city in the developed world, apartment blocks have banks of individual post-boxes in the entrance area where residents pick up their post? In London I have just moved into a newly built apartment block which is divided into four cores on 12 floors. The postman has to deliver to each individual apartment in each of the cores. There is no cross access between the cores so he uses four lifts stopping at each of the 12 floors four times—he stops four times at floor one, etcetera—to finish his round. It is no wonder that my mail is not delivered until 10.30 a.m. at the earliest! Does the Minister know whether there are regulations prohibiting the installing of banks of individual postboxes in apartment blocks? If there are such regulations, does he think that they could be amended? It may seem a simple, stupid suggestion but it could make all the difference to the productivity of the service in large areas of major cities.
Of course, I am conscious that the individual customer is nothing like as vital as business customers, but with the commitment to the universal service they are important. The issue of rural post offices has been aired many times in your Lordships' House and I shall not prolong my speech by reiteration. There is just one aspect of the rural post office that is important and should not be overlooked. The post office in small hamlets, villages or towns provides a category of social service in addition to facilities covering benefits, pensions, TV licences, and so on. It can be the centre of a community. Lonely people catch up there on the local news. For example, action is taken if someone has not appeared for his or her pension. Could they be ill alone at home and need help?
For all kinds of reasons, many small communities are being turned into dormitory areas and second home enclaves. But there are many people living out their final years in fairly isolated circumstances for whom the local post office cum small store is a lifeline. I hope that that point will be taken into account in the headlong rush to introduce competition into the postal service.
I look forward to hearing all the contributions to the debate and thank in advance all those who are to speak. This is a very important subject as well as being very topical. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for initiating this debate. It is an important time for Consignia and it is right that we should discuss these matters at his juncture. I look

1103
forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lord Clarke who had distinguished careers in the Post Office on the management and union sides respectively.
My brief contribution will be focused on a report produced last August by a body that I had the privilege of chairing with Mr Nicholas Underhill QC and Mr Ian Borket. The report examined the unstable state of industrial relations at the Royal Mail and the effects of that on service delivery. All those who take an interest in this industry are aware of its generally unstable industrial relations. Noble Lords may find one figure helpful in that regard. In the year to 2001, 66,000 employee days were lost to the business through unofficial industrial action. That is clearly unacceptable and something needed to be done about that.
We visited six mail centres, four of which were regarded as failing mail centres due to the high level of unofficial industrial action and two of which were regarded as operating satisfactorily with limited or no industrial action. We indicate in the report that an old-fashioned and outdated management style is adopted in the business. That style is authoritarian, directive and controlling. Many postmen and postwomen say that their managers and business leaders adopt a bullying attitude. "Bullying" is a strong word but it is often used to describe the management style in the Post Office. We found that the union response to that management style is as one would expect; that is, it is adversarial. The unions oppose that management style and want something different. Consequently, the unions often deploy restrictive practices. In general, an adversarial system of industrial relations exists in the business.
The issue that had the greatest impact on my colleagues and I conducting the independent inquiry was the complete collapse of trust between the management and the unions. That is a serious situation. Any organisation or business in which trust between the management, the workforce and the trade unions has collapsed is bound to encounter difficulties in trying to perform successfully. It seems to me that that is the biggest single issue in industrial relations terms that the business needs to resolve.
Our report contains two main recommendations. The first is to bring to an end unofficial industrial action. We consider that to be absolutely fundamental. If the business continues with high levels of industrial action business confidence and the ability of the business to be successful will continue to decline.
The second main recommendation was that management and unions should move away from adversarial or confrontational industrial relations and towards the partnership working that we see in many successful businesses and industries. We demanded big change from the management in our report, but we also demanded big change from the unions. What that boils down to is that we are looking for a new culture in the Post Office that values and respects people and
1104
which gives people, whatever the level they work at, an opportunity to make a significant contribution to the business.
Our report was received by both sides in August last year, and it was accepted by both sides. 'They immediately agreed to place a moratorium on all unofficial industrial action. Noble Lords might think that that was a matter only for the trade unions, but industrial action is often caused by authoritarian management attitudes. The moratorium was implemented by both sides and is now seven months old. Since the report's publication, there have been hardly any incidents of unofficial industrial action in the business.
Consequently, the service levels in the business have risen from 86 per cent to 90 per cent and the standards have stayed above 90 per cent since August last year. That is not clearly in the public domain because people are anxious that such success will not be maintained if we start to celebrate it prematurely, it might end and the celebrations would have been unwarranted. However, I say, "Well done, that is an important step forward and we need more".
Management and unions have also embarked on detailed work through working parties to try to implement the rest of the report. They are considering partnership boards, management training and behaviour, how to implement agreements and procedures in an employee-friendly way and how to improve communications in the business. All of that is being done below the line, as it were, and not in the public spotlight. However, all of those matters are essential if we are to make long-term improvements in the way in which the business is managed and run.
I have seen managers at training colleges learning to respect and manage postmen and postwomen in a different, more inclusive way and the so-called union militants sitting round the table trying to work out constructive ways of building a partnership with managers. I do not say that the business is anywhere near being problem-free, but some of what we asked for in the report has been attempted. The people who are doing that need to be encouraged and supported.
We have a long way to go—we shall no doubt hear more about that in this debate. I refer to the cuts of £1.2 billion that we heard about when the chairman attended the Select Committee, the pay dispute that has already been mentioned this afternoon and which I hope will go to mediation and be resolved without a strike—a strike over pay is the last thing that the business currently needs—and the consequences of last week's statement by the regulator. The opening of bulk mail to the market has not yet been pronounced on by management, but that is a serious blow to the business. When management and unions come to terms with all the problems, we shall have more pain rather than less. My message to both sides is, "Keep going, build trust and partnerships, work together and respect each other. You have got the future of this business in your hands. You will meet competition but you can beat it if you work together rather than against each other".
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall discuss services to rural areas in particular. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on securing this debate. It allows me to expand a little on the comments that I made in relation to my Question last Wednesday in your Lordships' House. I was surprised by the Minister's Answer to my Question because it suggested that the Government now have sloping shoulders with regard to accepting responsibility. They should accept responsibility for the overall communications that rural areas—indeed, all areas—receive. However, my brief is rural areas and I live in a rural area. Rural areas are particular in that communications are more vital to them. People who live in rural areas either have to travel far or use a good communications system. When there are threats to that communications system, people in rural areas feel that particularly deeply.
I do not believe that the postal service we receive is a problem. It is of course difficult that my post sometimes does not arrive until midday but I greatly appreciate the fact that the service is reliable, secure and—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, touched on this—personal. That means much to the people in the village in which I live and to those in many rural areas.
When the regulator opened up the postal service to competition, I wonder whether he considered some of the services that the Royal Mail currently provides. I refer, for example, to the use of post buses. People use that service to travel round the countryside in places such as Exmoor. That service might disappear if the business was strictly commercial. I suspect that Postcomm has not considered that.
On the Post Office network, there was a moment when the Government could have seized the glory. Perhaps the Minister will reassure me that that moment has not passed. The rural White Paper contained some very good ideas about a pilot study, which has been conducted in Leicestershire. I remind the Minister, although I am sure that he does not need reminding of this, of some of the Government's aspirations for that pilot study. The White Paper stated:
"The pilot will give older people, families and children a specially tailored information and transactions service in their local post offices, not only by face to face access across the counter, but also using Internet kiosks, web phones, telephone links, help-lines and surgeries. These will provide new health services, and general community and educational information".
That was a good vision and I hope that the Leicestershire pilot is succeeding. I hope that the Minister will comment on it. The Government also said in the White Paper that they intend to roll out the pilot across the country if it is successful. We look forward to that. If it is not successful, I hope that the Government will pursue that worthy vision. It encapsulates the sort of thinking with which I hope the Government approach the whole issue of communications. They should secure a cohesive network that is not so divided.
1106
I have already raised with the Minister the issue of broadband access for people in rural areas. The service is very patchy and does not appear to be set to get much better. Indeed, in today's newspapers, noble Lords will read of the difficulties of NTL and Telewest—I refer to their huge debts and the problems that they face. That does not suggest that they will extend any more of their cabling into a commercially difficult area.
If we are to have a difficult postal service, in which we are regarded as second-class citizens compared with businesses and those in urban areas, we should be increasingly reliant on extremely good Internet access. That is where the future may lie. However, the Government are doing little to secure such broadband access. They passed on that responsibility to the regional development agencies. The Government should consult those agencies further on whether they feel that they have sufficient finance to progress cabling in those areas. The Minister will no doubt reply that that is a matter for the private sector. I remind him that unless there is sufficient start-up use of that network for it to make the business worth while for cable companies, it simply will not happen. To date, the Government have not put their backing behind the provision of such facilities through, for example, post offices.
Furthermore, I believe—I am sure that other noble Lords will he better placed to comment on this—that the Government should ask themselves what the role of the regulator is. Is it to take a narrow view of the service and see what can be done about it, or is it to take a broad view in consultation with government of how an entire service can be improved? I fear there is a long way to go.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for raising this important topic. Should ownership of the Post Office be public or private? A perfectly good case can be made out either way. At present, we have an arrangement which seems to achieve the worst of both worlds—a private company with a single government shareholder and with Ministers in the background ready to interfere but not to accept responsibility.
The arguments for the privatised model include, among others, that it should enable the organisation to make maximum use of the markets so that it can provide the full range of new services that will be needed during the years ahead of fast-developing technologies; the reality of European liberalisation that will open Britain to outside competition; the fact that in other countries where full privatisation has been attempted, it seems to have been rather successful; and, perhaps above all, that competition is likely to force change in a stagnant and not very well managed business and force management to think of its customers' requirements rather than its own apparent convenience.
In that context I want to address the specific idea, which was reported in the Financial Times and which Consignia is said to be considering, of giving priority

1107
to business over residential customers. It is believed that most of the latter leave their homes by 8 a.m. and therefore do not care whether a letter arrives at 9 a.m. or 3 p.m.
What clearer indication could there be that Consignia's management has lost touch with the real world outside its own headquarters? Huge numbers of small businesses are run from home. A large number of businesses—I am chairman of one public company that does this——encourage some of their workforce to work from home using the new technologies rather than occupy large, expensive offices in the middle of town. A large number of people have multiple occupations; indeed, looking around the Benches in this House today, I suspect that I see a good many to whom that applies. And there are those who run, or raise money for, charities. One could go on; there is a host of such cases. In any event, what constitutes a business? Is it an individual earning a living, a public company, a private company or a partnership? I simply do riot know how one defines "a business".
The time at which mail reaches a home depends very often on the ability of the individual postman. For a long time, we had a remarkable postman in my own part of Battersea, who seldom failed to have the mail in my letter-box before 10 in the morning; and often it was earlier. For many months, his successor practically never delivered our mail before lunch. That caused a good deal of inconvenience, despite the marvellous geniality of his smile when he finally arrived. I suppose that it was also a useful experience for me to deliver so many other people's mail which had been delivered incorrectly through my letter-box. I believe that the fact that Consignia is considering the proposal to divide the mail in this way suggests that something is badly wrong with the company.
However, one aspect of the mail delivered to my door may be part of the problem; that is, the huge weight and bulk of wholly unwanted mail, 80 per cent of which swiftly goes into my rubbish bin and helps to create a major environmental problem. It takes many shapes: a huge number of often duplicated mail order catalogues; unwanted solicitations; several invitations a week for gold, platinum, diamond or other credit cards; and an extraordinary number of frequently repeated charitable appeals. One sometimes wonders whether charities realise that if they repeat their appeals very frequently to those who have just given, it may be a rather unproductive exercise.
I noted that my noble friend argued against having two classes of mail. But, if we are to split the mail service, I wonder whether it might be a good idea to have a second-class delivery of the bulk mail which we do not want and would not mind if it did not arrive until the afternoon. I want the mail which is important and which i want to read to reach me early in the morning before I leave home.
In Wales I do not necessarily expect my mail to arrive before 9.30 a.m. Certainly my neighbours who live in remote roads could not expect that. But the universal delivery to my neighbours and to all of us in the countryside is of immense importance. If that
1108
service were abandoned, it would be a further disastrous blow to an already hard-hit countryside. Therefore, if we are to have competition, I believe that it must be genuine competition that imposes similar obligations on all who provide the service. We have a regime in the independent television sector that imposes obligations, and it can be made to work. I believe that it would he a disaster to cherry-pick the very best and leave Consignia only with the obligations.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain reminded us that Postcomm has responsibility for ensuring that the universal service remains. I wish that I had more confidence in the ability of financial regulators to get it right. Our experience in other industries has not been altogether encouraging. Therefore, I view the possibility that it will manage the affair by means of cherry-picking as a real threat.
My own conclusion is that we probably do need more competition, but it must be fair competition. That can only be achieved if one goes down the road of full privatisation combined with obligations. The worst option is a system in which the Government play an unhelpful role—they have not exactly been brilliant in replacing the chairman—but pretend to have no responsibility. I say to Ministers that if the universal service goes and the delivery service continues to decline, I believe they will learn that responsibilities exist. I believe that they will also learn that the electorate, not least in the countryside, feels fairly strongly about these issues. Those responsibilities cannot be dodged; if they are, they will pay a heavy political price.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her exquisite timing for this debate. Britain has one of the leading post offices in the world. As a member of its superannuation scheme, I declare some interest in its future.
As we debate the Post Office today, its allure potential as one of the main players in a liberalised postal service in Europe is in the balance. I suggest that our shared concern should be that it emerges as one of the winners, providing benefit to the nation, to the workers and to the business. They must all perceive benefit. The Post Office is on the threshold of that new world following two years during which, by common consent, things have gone badly. And it is the custom of our nation to stand back and ask who is to blame.
I have it on very good authority from a Motion presented by the Conservative Party to the other place on 29th January that,
"the Government's total mismanagement … has created the crisis that is facing the Post Office today".
No less authoritatively, I have the Government's amendment to that Motion, which invited the Commons to condemn 18 years of Conservative misrule, citing in support a catalogue of misdemeanours. Do I look to my left or do I look to my right?

1109
What happened? Who went? It was the chairman. The chairman's lot is not a happy one. Dr Bain rendered a service and led the Post Office into its new plc status. We ought to thank him for his role.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of the Government in seeing that we get our letters at a reasonable price and within a reasonable time. Responsibility for that lies essentially with the lads and lasses who deliver the letters and the managers who help it to happen. However, the Government have a significant role. I shall identify four areas in which I look to the Government to discharge their role effectively.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said when commenting on the chairmanship, the Government's first and overriding responsibility is to ensure that the Post Office has a strong board. Dr Bain has gone and we have an interregnum. That is not what one would have chosen and we are very fortunate that Allan Leighton has taken the job. The Government must get the long-term appointment right. They have no more important responsibility in that respect at the moment. For goodness sake, they must remember that if they want somebody world class, they will not get them for coppers. The Government have to face up to the reality that they must reward good performance. If they find—and if the new chairman agrees—that the board needs strengthening in some areas to enable it to be effective in a newly competitive world, they should be prepared to make another part-time appointment if need be. That is the Government's prime responsibility.
The Government's second responsibility is to make it their business to give a brisk response when they receive the proposals from the Post Office on its new strategic plan at the end of March. So often in my day, the proposals disappeared into Whitehall. The quickest that I ever got a decision on a major investment was one year.
In recent times the record has been much better, but there is an awful tendency for all the lads in Whitehall to gather round the corpse and get their pickings. This is not a time for that; this is a time for the Government to approach the issue as a merchant bank would harness resources to dispatch the business effectively and quickly.
My third point of concern, which has already cropped up in the debate, relates to Postcomm's proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to its duties: to ensure that there is a universal service, but to promote competition between postal operators in the interests of consumers wherever possible. The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that Postcomm intends to get on with it. However, it intends to do so much more briskly than Europe as a whole. That is what worries me. We are opening up our markets to the Germans, the Dutch and the French. Look what happened with the water and electricity industries. It is right to open up the market to competition—it will be a wake-up call and will cause
1110
the business to be revisited and recreated—but, my goodness, we must not give the business away. There are risks.
If the statutory duties are not right, it is our fault because we passed the legislation. Unlike some previous statutes, it does not require Postcomm to have regard to the national interest in all respects. It says, "Go for competition, lads". That is not enough. There is a wider national interest and it is the Government's duty to see to that.
My final humble request to the Government is not to continue to treat the Post Office as a cash cow. Look what has happened to the Tube and the railways through the denial of investment. We all lose out. There may be battles to be fought with the Treasury on dividend policy and a capital structure, but Ministers must fight them if need be, because it is in the public interest that they do so.
Those are my requests to the Government. The essence of the battle has to be won not by the two sides in the Post Office fighting each other, but by fighting the competition. I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, whose beneficent influence is found throughout the Post Office today. We needed a catalyst to tell those involved, "Come on, you silly b's, there are better games to be played than confrontation". They can only succeed by collaboration and looking for new ways.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to the "distinguished" contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and myself. Happily they are now extinguished. As yesterday's men, we have something to look back on with pride. I do not have time to give the House the comparative figures for quality of service and price, but, particularly above the 30 gram cut-off point, our Post Office compares very well with most other post offices in the world. We have something that could become one of the winners in the continental game of competing post offices. We must stop arguing about yesterday and who is to blame. There is something to be won. Postal volumes per head in the United States are twice those per head in this country. It is not a business of yesterday; it is a business with a future, if only we can make it together. We must.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in thanking—
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, it is difficult to follow such a knowledgeable speech. I know that the whole House enjoyed it and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for instigating the debate, which could not come at a better time.
My first point relates to rural and deprived urban areas. It is possible that the current proposals will result in a breakdown of the universal postal service, which would have an adverse effect on rural areas and on most deprived urban areas.
In rural areas, post offices are not just post offices; they are part of the way of life. The effects of closures have already been felt in many rural areas. I shall share

1111
a personal experience to illustrate that. For many years I lived in a small Suffolk village. We had two shops, one of which incorporated the post office, and we had one public house. They were meeting places, particularly the local village shop, which catered for all postal services, payment of welfare benefits, car licences and other matters. It was of particular importance to older villagers and to parents with children, who were unable to travel as easily as other folk.
The postmistress was a fount of wisdom. She helped her customers with filling in forms, advice about benefits and many other issues. When she retired, the shop was due to close, but luckily the couple who ran the public house agreed to carry on the post office element. That arrangement lasted for a number of years, until the brewery that owned the pub refurbished others close by and the one in our village closed. One by one, the places where we used to meet and exchange views and information on local and national issues disappeared, as did that part of our village life.
In rural areas, postmen and women are a big part of the community. They take verbal messages from neighbour to neighbour, as well as their postal deliveries. They know the local population. They watch out for the elderly in case they are ill and they know whom to contact if they are. They have a knowledge of the area and its inhabitants that is second to none. If the closing of rural post offices continues as it has done, there will be a fundamental change in an important part of rural life. Postcomm should know that already.
In its first annual report on the network of post offices 2000–01, research showed that customers placed particular value on the following services and side benefits of post offices: buying stamps; getting cash, pensions and benefits; paying bills; posting parcels; accessing general support and advice; supporting the local economy and having a community focal point. So, it is there for Postcomm to see in black and white.
I would urge the Minister to point out to those concerned the difficulties more closures would create and to suggest instead that there should be encouragement for post offices to diversify by, for example, becoming a general store and so provide valuable services for their customers, which include community value. But that is not the only diversification which could help. I shall give another example, which has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
At the end of last year I attended a briefing on the Government's transport policies. I particularly asked about rural areas. I was told that different forms of transport were being considered for rural areas, including post buses, which would carry not only post and parcels but people too. The villagers know the time that a post bus arrives in and returns to their village, and can plan their trip to the nearest small market town accordingly. That has been tried before successfully in East Anglia. I hope that the idea has not been shelved because of what I regard as ill-judged proposals.
1112
Another point occurred to me in the course of the debate. It was suggested by the noble Baroness that letters could be left communally in urban areas. That could happen also in rural areas. I have a house in France. There, I do not receive my letters through my door. There is a communal post-box area from which we all fetch our letters each day. The little post van comes in, makes one stop and goes out again. We do the leg work. There is nothing to stop that happening in our rural areas. I hope that in his reply my noble friend can tell me whether any such ideas can he considered.
Finally, I turn to one group of workers in Consignia and the difficulties they face; that is, the managers in the organisation. Here, I must declare an interest as a former national official of the union which organises the managers: Amicus. I was interested to hear the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sawyer in relation to the difficulties that he found in the Post Office. Perhaps I could add a little to that.
I have looked through a number of publications regarding the proposed changes and the consultation processes. I may have missed it, but I have not spotted the word "managers" once in relation to them being consulted. They are the people who will have to put any new proposals into practice. Consignia will need to rely heavily on them in future; perhaps even more so than now. I hope that they will not mind me describing them as "piggies in the middle". I am not referring to senior management but to middle management, which is taking the pressures from worried workers below and enthusiastic reformers above. Morale is low throughout the service. That can be seen also among managers.
Middle managers want the Post Office to work. However, as I found recently when, together with my noble friend Lord Hoyle, I met members of Amicus who are managers, they recognise the worries faced by all working in the Post Office. They want to be part of the solution to those worries but they are not being consulted as they should. They have a knowledge of how the postal system works, which they believe is not being recognised or used. Like all of us when we think we are under-valued, middle managers are becoming disillusioned and disaffected.
If Consignia is to be any kind of driving force in the future, the morale of that group of workers must be raised and its value truly recognised. Consignia must learn to be inclusive not exclusive in its future dealings with its workforce.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall try again. In thanking my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for initiating this—as she said—most topical debate, I should declare my interest in the subject. For the past 30 years my family business has been that of a specialised mail order company. Orders have come in by post and are sent out by post. By and large over that period, I have been a fan of what is now called Consignia. I am, perhaps, what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell called, "a person in multiple occupation".

1113
It seems to me that Consignia today is rather like the little girl in the nursery rhyme:
"When she was good
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad she was horrid".
Perhaps I may start with letter post, in which I include bulk postage and so-called "junk mail". In passing, I should like to point out to the complainants of junk mail that one person's junk mail is another's purchasing opportunity.
That said, bulk mail, in my part of the West Country at least, is a very efficient operation indeed. Both the office and the collection staff are well-trained, courteous and co-operative. As long as items are uniform and post coded, experience shows that they are delivered well inside the contracted delivery period. Undelivered items are returned promptly—the first ones within two or three days—from as far away as East Anglia and the north of England, enabling us to keep our customer base up to date, thus saving both ourselves and—this is the important point today—Consignia time and money.
What of the day-to-day letter post? It arrives before 8.30 a.m. allowing it to be opened as or even before the office staff arrive. Although I accept that the Royal Mail must have targets, wearing my mail order hat I am not in the least fazed if letters are not delivered the next working day so far as concerns first-class post, or even the day after. It does not matter to me whether second-class mail takes more than three working days.
Speaking as an individual member of the public, however, I can get a little fractious from time to time but not overly so. Which of us, with our hand on our heart, can tell how long a letter has taken to arrive? We know the date which is on the top of the letter. We cannot read the postmark. We do not know when it was put in the post-box or when it was collected. We have to rely on published data. Be that as it may, the net result is that I would be more than happy with a single tariff, meaning that one could almost guarantee two working days' delivery. To reinforce one of the requests of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, I should like to ask the Minister what work if any has been done on this by his department, Postcomm or, indeed, Consignia. What would be the average saving of time and cost of not having to pre-sort letters and packets into first and second-class and what would that mean to average delivery times?
It is regularly asked whether full competition would benefit the consumer. I used to be a promoter of that concept, but my worries have increased. By licensing other firms in specific areas, Postcomm has—wittingly, I presume—made it much more difficult and expensive for Consignia to fulfil the fundamental obligation in its licence; that of the universal service provision, which its competitors do not have. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, to whom I owe an apology for trying to speak out of turn.
1114
Your Lordships may be amused by a little ditty which I came across in my weekend reading, which is pertinent:
"The rain, it falleth on the just
And also on the unjust fella:
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust … [nicked] the just's umbrella".
I know from previous experience that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain dislikes the expression "a level playing field", so let us call it "fairness". Is it fair that only Royal Mail has to deliver at a uniform price to any address in the country while its partial competitors do not? Is it fair that its competitors have to pay VAT, while Royal Mail does not? Do these two cancel each other out? I hope that the Minister will tell me. For myself, I have grave doubts.
So far as concerns competition, we have a model in Parcelforce Worldwide, which is outside the reserved area and, interestingly, has never made a profit. So why does it remain part of Consignia's portfolio of businesses? I was mystified by the chief executive's reply to this question, which I asked in connection with Sub-Committee B's inquiry into the EU draft directive on the further liberalisation of Community postal services. His answer, which is to be found on page 25 of the Select Committee's second report of last Session, is that he believes that the Post Office should be a complete distribution company. Only then will Consignia be able to compete in Europe. Although I do not claim to be a big business strategist, I find it very hard to swallow that the answer to Consignia's problems is to be a one-stop shop for everything that goes through a postal system.
To be fair, Consignia has tried hard to cure its problems with Parcelforce. One of those has been the collection on and delivery to the doorstep by directly employed drivers. In my experience, current staff often do not know the route they are to follow; and it is not unknown for them to omit leaving "failed to deliver" cards when the householder or other recipient is out. More and more mail order companies are being asked by their customers to put extra information on address labels—"If out, deliver to No. 36", or, "Put in garage", or, one I saw only the other day, "If out, leave under the hedge". That last is not something that I would do personally, but like the Minister, I appreciate the old trading adage, "The customer is always right".
I am told that Consignia has agreed with its unions that the answer to these problems is contracting out to owner drivers who would get to know their areas on pain of their contracts not being renewed.
Parcelforce has also built a vast new collection point at Coventry. It is, I understand, not functioning properly due to union problems. I find the 24-hour delivery service works quite well. However, the 72-hour one does not and can take well over seven working days. I only hope that Coventry will be up and running properly very soon and that this matter will be sorted out quickly.
I observe that I am about to run out of time and cannot cover any more issues. But I cannot forbear to point out that Consignia's interim results for the first half of this year—let alone last year—already show an

1115
operating loss of £100 million. That is five times its operating loss at the same point last year. To add insult to injury, the Government are asking for a dividend. If the Government want Consignia to succeed—and I genuinely believe that they do—at the very least they should not be demanding a dividend. Better still, they should pull out their wallet and pay for their share of the write-down of the assets of the Horizon project that they are responsible for, so that Consignia can invest to remain in the top four of European postal services. Otherwise, its future, as we all recognise, is grim indeed.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness Lady O'Cathain for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the future of Consignia.
I declare my usual interest. I joined the Post Office at the age of 14 in 1946. For over 50 years I have been directly connected with our once great public service, both as an employee——as a telegraph boy and then a postman—before becoming a senior official of the Union of Post Office Workers, now known as the Communication Workers Union. I am also a former trustee of the Post Office Pension Scheme, which I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is in a very healthy state. He has no need to express concern about his monthly cheque coming through.
Perhaps I may also, by way of introduction, thank my noble friend Lord Sawyer for the excellent job that was so desperately needed within the Post Office. His report was welcomed by both sides. It is already bearing fruit. If it was not for the muddied waters of the current pay claim, further progress would have been made.
During the Second Reading debate on the Postal Services Bill, I said that the Bill,
"signalled the beginning of the end for our world renowned Postal Service".—[Official Report, 2/5/00; col. 959.]
I said it clearly and deliberately. All that has happened since the Bill became an Act has done nothing to change my opinion. I said on that occasion that many people, both inside and outside of this House, welcomed the fact that the Post Office—as it was at that time—at long last was to be granted commercial freedom, a situation that both Post Office management and the employees had pressed for over a very long period.
In fact, during my maiden speech I said that,
"Commercial freedom will allow the Post Office to plan outside the Government's public expenditure cycle. It will give it freedom to borrow and invest, freedom to enter into acquisitions, joint ventures and strategic alliances, and freedom to allow the workforce to share in the success of the Post Office".—[0fficial Report, l/l2/98; col. 4101]
I am bound to say that those hopes for the future well-being of the Post Office have been dashed. How sad, as we witness today the further emasculation of a great public service. How sad that it is being sacrificed by the Government as they add further constraints on
1116
the management of Consignia as it struggles to meet the challenges that it faces with one hand tied behind its back.
I would have liked to make comment on the apparent slippage on the creation of a universal bank as envisaged in the PIU report. Equally I would have liked to spend some time on considering the future, if there is one, for the rural counter network. In the limited time available I should like to say one or two things about the recent proposals that have come from Postcomm that I believe place an unfair burden on the chief executive and the board of Consignia.
It may seem strange that I, as a former trade union official, should concern myself with the problems of the chief executive and the board. Consignia—what a name that we gave our wonderful Post Office! What nonsense. They said that it was to establish a corporate image here and abroad. What arrant nonsense. The British Post Office needed no rebadging. The Royal Mail thankfully retains its good name; a good name earned by centuries of efficient and reliable service to public and businesses alike. It is not really surprising that the public and business alike recognise the name Royal Mail; it has been with us since 1635. It came about when Charles I issued a proclamation which allowed the public to use his Royal Mail. Management and employees alike are proud that up until now that name has remained.
However, having listened to my former Post Office colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, perhaps all is not lost. Perhaps the Government will think again about the report Opening the Post: Postcomm and postal services and the proposals from Postcomm. Perhaps they will belatedly recognise that the Postal Services Act 2000 is flawed; and that Postcomm can make proposals in respect of operating licences that come into effect as early as 1st April this year. That is less than seven weeks away, a matter mentioned in the response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. We were told last week that they have had since January. With regard to the question of landlords' registration they had about two or three years to consult. Here we are, with centuries of history, with another seven weeks left. No wonder the National Audit Office report commented in paragraph 1.30:
"While Postcomm's staff have considerable experience in economic regulation, none have direct experience of the postal business".
The interim chairman of Consignia—I have said it again—Allan Leighton, has been quoted as saying that markets should be opened up at a pace and in a way that enables customers to have more choice. while at the same time giving the Post Office—I know that I should say Consignia; I will try very hard not to slip too much but it still hurts when I say it—a realistic chance to compete effectively and maintain a universal service at a uniform price.
The proposals from Postcomm, which open up 30 per cent of the market in just a few weeks' time, threaten that universal service. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that whatever is said from the Government Benches, it will threaten the universal

1117
service. To take away the profitable parts of an operation but maintain the responsibility for the universal service, having taken away some of its income in the first place, and then expect it to maintain a universal services is nonsense. It is about time that we started speaking some plain language.
There can be no doubt that those granted licences will cream off the profitable parts of the postal business—the very parts that enable the Royal Mail to meet its responsibilities. There can be no comfort in the fact that phases two and three of the Postcomm proposals are scheduled for 2004 and 2006. If the Government are to wring their hands and do nothing, precious little will be left of our great collection, distribution and delivery systems. That comes after all the successful years when the Post Office poured money into the Treasury—billions of pounds over many years—but was not allowed even to use its own money to reinvest but had to go cap-in-hand to try to get money for postal mechanisation, optical character recognition and so on. I could continue with a long list but time does not allow.
Is it not a little strange that the cost of a first-class letter posted in the UK is lower than that of the nearest of our European postal service colleagues by I 1p? A letter weighing between 50 and 60 grammes posted in Spain costs 38p compared to 27p in this country. In Portugal, it costs 42p; in Belgium, 63p; in France, 72p; in the Netherlands, 82p; in Italy, 87p; and in Germany, £1.08.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will explain why the Postcomm proposals differ so much in form and timing from those of the European Commission. It must be said that in pushing through Postcomm the Government are going further than was ever required by the Commission. Perhaps my noble friend could also tell the House about the level of profitability of Swedish Post since liberalisation in that country. On the same subject, what has happened to the prices of Swedish Post since liberalisation?
I ask the Government to take heed of some of the warnings in the National Audit Office report that I mentioned earlier. My time is now running out. I prepared so much because last night when I went home we were to have 11 minutes in which to speak, so the Minister will be pleased to hear that he does not have to answer about another 14 questions. However, I should like to cite another quotation from Allan Leighton. He says that there is a real need for the Government, in their desire for increased competition, to demonstrate fairness. His report states:
"Regulation should support a competitive environment, not stifle it".
As a start, the Government should relax their requirement for a dividend totalling £70 million. That would provide some breathing space. Furthermore, 1p extra on our first and second-class letters would bring in £182 million in a full year.
Time has run out, and I am sorry if I have abused the House's time. In conclusion, I endorse every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We have a
1118
Post Office of which to be proud. I ask the Government to give it fair treatment and not to allow the get-rich-quick carriers to cream off the profitable parts. In all television and radio interviews, our competitors have said one thing about the Postcomm proposals: they will have to charge more to do what the Post Office does now.
I ask my noble friend to assure your Lordships that the great British Post Office is not to be destroyed. Finally, what has happened since the Government were elected in 1997 is entirely their responsibility—there are no previous governments to blame.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I recall well the words of the Minister on Second Reading of what became the Postal Services Act 2000. He said:
"The Bill will establish a modern Post Office that is able to develop its business and grow as a significant global player so that it can meet the enormous challenges and take advantage of the opportunities which now arise in the rapidly changing national and international markets … and a better deal for all consumers".—[Official Report, 02/5/00; col. 931.]
Those fine words were spoken in May 2000 but the actuality has turned out to be slightly different. From a group operating profit of £397 million in 1999, the rebranded Consignia sank to an operating loss of £271 million—the first in 24 years—in the year to March 2000. Another operating loss of £70 million followed in the year to March 2001 and, in the latest half-year report to September 2001, it increased again to £100 million. Clearly, the rosy scenario forecast by the Minister has not come to pass. Letter deliveries are now losing the group £1 million a day. Last December, it was announced that more than 62,000 working days had been lost in 2000–01.
What has gone wrong and where is the way forward? Our party wanted to privatise the Post Office but lacked the parliamentary majority to see it through. Various problems have conspired to weaken the position of the Post Office. They come under four different headings: first, change in nature of the business; secondly, lack of investment; thirdly, labour relations, productivity and efficiency; and, fourthly, competition. I shall examine each in detail.
First, I shall consider the change in nature of the business. It is clear that fewer letters are being sent due to the advent of e-mail and text messaging. As a result, the service is losing £1 million a day. The price of first-class and second-class post has not been raised in line with costs. There has also been less revenue from junk mail, due to the downturn in the advertising sector.
Lack of investment has been a long-term problem. Profits have not been reinvested in the modernisation of the business. One means of raising capital for investment would have been to privatise the Post Office. That would have enabled it to compete on the European stage rather than being overtaken by its continental rivals, which have spent more time courting business users and entering high-margin growth areas such as express delivery. The Dutch post office bought TNT; the German post office bought DHL; and the French post office a piece of FedEx.

1119
One needs only to visit a UK post office to realise the problems caused by lack of investment. Every transaction seems to be written down by hand and computerisation is unknown territory. Nor does Consignia seem to be at the forefront of e-commerce. The range of products on its website is unexciting. Management should consider investing much more in that part of the business. Perhaps, as other notable retailers have done, a reward or club card could be produced.
However, the Government appear to be taking money out of Consignia. I am most surprised to see in the accounts, under the heading "Future Dividends", £151 million for 2000 and £93 million for 2001, when the operating losses for those years were £275 million and £70 million respectively. Will the Minister explain why that dividend is being paid when the group is making losses?
Turning to labour relations, productivity and efficiency, it is unfortunate that higher wage levels have not led to higher productivity. As I mentioned, more than 60,000 days were lost in 2000–01, demonstrating the poor state of industrial relations. A national ballot on a 5 per cent wage claim has produced a yes verdict. That is a dangerous development for Consignia.
Management should share some of the blame. The chief executive's sudden admission to a Commons Select Committee of 30,000 job cuts was stated as necessary to reduce costs and dependence on labour. However, the timing, just before Christmas, was insensitive—coming out of the blue—and has undermined the well-meaning talk of partnership that emerged from the independent inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, into the state of the organisation's industrial relations last summer. To their credit, the unions had accepted that critical report and a wave of unofficial strikes that hit performance early last year was reduced to a handful.
As has been stated, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, reflected a startling throwback to the 1970s. It painted a picture of bullying, inadequate managers and obstructive, suspicious unions. The noble Lord was clear that lasting productivity gains could come only from a massive shift in attitudes on both sides, with a transformation of the management culture matched by a wholehearted workforce commitment to customer service. Although the noble Lord saw some isolated pockets of good practice, there is little doubt that the future of the organisation depends on spreading them to the rest of the country. As I said, the method of disclosure of a large number of job cuts has made that task much more difficult. At 5 per cent, the size of the wage claim is completely unrealistic, especially when the group has admitted cost-cutting targets of £1.2 billion by 2003.
Turning to the fourth area, competition, Consignia faces particular difficulties due to its high labour costs. Wages are 70 per cent of costs. It has found it difficult to compete in other areas, for instance in the de-restricted area above £1. The future appears even worse. Postcomm has decided to end the Royal Mail's
1120
monopoly over letter delivery within four years. That seems a drastic move. But clearly the current system is not working in financial terms, so something had to be done. Critics would say that if we allow our competitors to cherry-pick the most profitable areas of Consignia's business, it will make the universal service obligation much more expensive. It means that, as the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters (NFSP) stated, profits used to subsidise rural consumers will instead be taken by competitors. The NFSP believes that competition should be introduced in gradual and controlled ways. NFSP is concerned that current proposals do not adequately cater for the maintenance of the socially crucial universal service and network of local post offices.
With regard to the future, Postcomm must tread carefully. As the Independent stated on 24th January,
"This is a company that is in serious trouble. It will be a real challenge for the regulators to open up competition without making Consignia's weaknesses much worse".
But I do not agree with the CWU's expression that, in effect, nothing should be done. Clearly the level of losses suffered by the Post Office is unacceptable.
Another major problem for the future of Consignia is the question of sub-post offices. I expressed concern at Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill that the proposed change to benefit payments meant the Post Office would lose approximately £400 million—onethird of Post Office Counters' annual revenue. We were then promised, following a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, two separate initiatives. First, a new "universal bank" service would be aimed at finding new revenue streams lost as a result of a decision to bring in compulsory ACT by 2003. That promise has made stuttering progress. So far as I am aware there is still no alternative proposed to benefit payment income which could halt the massive closure of sub-post offices which has occurred under Labour.
The second initiative is the subsidy and investment package of £270 million. Can the Minister say how the allocation of that package will work in practice? Will each case be considered on its merits? Finally, can I ask the Minister two further questions? Is it the case, as stated in the Independent of 1st February, that Consignia,
"has asked the government for almost £2 billion in subsidy to keep the network financially viable over the next five years".
Secondly, what assurances can the Minister give against the threat to the morning delivery of the post or the curtailment of second deliveries?
In summary, the Government seem content to leave Consignia's problems to be sorted out by Postcomm. However, they have now become extremely serious.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps in rising I can make just two points. First, I am a member of Amicus. which organises the Communications Managers Association, as is my noble friend Lady Gibson. Secondly, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for introducing this debate. Her forceful speech set the tone for the whole debate.

1121
Before I get into my speech I should like to say that this is not a time for scoring party-political points. However, I must point out that many sub-post offices closed under the last Conservative Government, not just under Labour. I simply want to make that point for the record before I talk about the Post Office, Consignia, and where we go from here.
It is right, as has been said, that the Post Office is not only a public service but also a social service. It is particularly necessary in the urban and less fortunate areas where the postman is so welcome. In village areas postmen and postwomen not only deliver mail, but also act as sentinels who call attention if someone has not taken the mail in, as do the milkmen in such areas. Perhaps we are fortunate in our village of 5,000 to still have two post offices. But I wonder for how much longer under these proposals.
What has not been mentioned but which is important to the owner or manager of a sub-post office is that he will not be able to sell that business bearing in mind the uncertainty now surrounding it. That is a new factor entering the situation.
It is correct that the Post Office was profitable until two years ago. For 23 years it had made a profit. Unfortunately, in 1999–2000, it lost £264 million. But I have to say that during that time the Treasury still took a dividend of £151 million and tax of £98 million. That was from a business that was losing money.
I agree with the earlier comment that the present management is rigid. I do not understand some of the decisions it made. Why set up Parcelforce with the national delivery system and all the administrative and management costs that that entails? It does surprise me that to date it has not made a profit.
Of course morale is very low in the Post Office. It is bound to be. The uncertainty adds to the lowering of morale. Such uncertainty brings in militancy and makes life much more difficult. The managers that we represent are middle management. My noble friend Lady Gibson said a lot about them and the situation in which they find themselves. But why there is no consultation with the people who have spent a lifetime in the Post Office and know the business inside out I do not know.
I want to ask some questions about the power of the regulator. For instance, why are we moving faster and further than the rest of Europe and, indeed, faster than the Government originally intended? Why are we moving in the opposite direction to the Commission? That is a problem that faces us. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is not in his place but I must take issue with him. Postcomm has to comply with certain regulations under UK law. For instance, it is required to,
"give precedence to maintenance of universal service and may not introduce competition which would jeopardise this objective".
Today we are considering measures that could jeopardise that objective. As has been said by many earlier speakers, from 1st January to 31st March it has to face competition that affects 40 per cent of the bulk of its business. That is a real blow that it must face. That is
1122
only the first proposal. In phase two, in 2004–06, it will lose 70 per cents of its volume. If that carries on, in 2006 all restrictions on competition will be removed.
Why is it that any review will consider not the damaging effects on the Post Office, but how further competition can be introduced? Perhaps my noble friend, when he comes to reply, can answer some of those questions. Can he say what are the powers of the regulator? Can the Government overrule any of the proposals being made by Postcomm even though, as many have said, they threaten the "universal service" because of their cherry-picking nature. What kind of competition is it that performs part of the job? It sorts the mail and then puts it back for the postal service to take over its delivery. Nor can the Royal Mail lower its prices in order to meet competition; it will not be allowed by the regulator to do that.
So the competition is unfair and unjust. Let us look at the competitive effects in Sweden. Since 1993 there has been a reduction of 52 per cent in the number of post offices. The public letter price has gone up by 60 per cent in real terms at a time when, in this country, we have lowered the price in real terms by 15 per cent. In Sweden it has not exactly been a financial success. For instance, it lost 1 million krona in the first quarter of 2001. The people of the smaller towns in New Zealand are now waiting for one or two extra days for their mail. As has been said, in Spain the service has been fully liberalised since 1960 yet despite that, efficiency has not improved because less than 70 per cent of the mail is delivered to target.
These are the kinds of things that we are facing. I face the danger of losing the universal service. When my noble friend replies, can he define the powers of the regulator, particularly in relation to Government and their policy, and why we are moving faster than any of our European competitors and certainly faster than, but in a different direction from, the Commission? Can he also say what is happening to the universal bank? Finally, is the Treasury going to demand the dividend it has demanded in the past, which amounted to over £90 million last year? These questions need to be answered. Like most other noble Lords who have spoken today, I fear that we are in danger of losing something that is valued by all, the universal postal service delivering everywhere for the same price.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, with whom I have common interests both in Bolton Wanderers and in cricket. Today he batted at No. 10 and I bat at No. 11. I have batted there often enough to know that by then the innings is generally almost over and that not much happens to change the game.
Edmund Burke began one of his greatest passages in Reflections on the French Revolution with a sentence redolent of an upmarket gossip column. He wrote,
"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I last saw the Queen of France".
In the same spirit it is now nearly 50 years since, as an undergraduate auxiliary postman, I last delivered Christmas cards to the late Sir Ralph Richardson in

1123
Hampstead, the village from which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, takes his title. Sir Ralph always entered into the spirit of the transaction by opening the door in a silk dressing gown. But that far-off duty is the only interest I can conceivably claim in this debate whose admirable, comprehensive and timely initiation by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain is most welcome. In the manual of the Royal Navy, there is a sentence that the first evidence of an approaching typhoon is a general sense on the part of the captain that all is not well.
Governments of both main colours are guilty of neglecting once great British institutions. They did so to the Tube allegedly because its management contained too many engineers, and Railtrack has recently been executed on the grounds that it has too few. There is no pleasing some people.
I do not know what view the present Government take of the management of Consignia, though perhaps we shall hear shortly. It was always said of it that its historic title "Royal Mail" was an amulet that served to protect it from interference. I apologise if, like some others who have spoken, I find Consignia an unmemorable alternative, but it is an easy read-across from the late Professor Parkinson's view that you should sell the shares of any company that builds a new headquarters block to one which changes its name by extravagant deed poll.
When this Government interfered with ACT in 1997, I said in a debate in another place that the Chancellor had reversed chaos theory under which the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in central America provokes the eruption of a volcano in Indonesia. He had hurled a boulder into the placid pool of pensions policy and in the process would cause old ladies in rural sub-post offices to pay more for their stamps so that the Post Office could repair the Chancellor's ravaging foray into their pension fund.
I had not at that stage worked out that it was doubly worse. The Chancellor defended his policy on the grounds that investment was more important than dividends. But in the case of the Post Office he had it both ways since the Government continued to collect post dividends and the Post Office was starved of investment.
Although I understand the concerns of earlier speakers, I am not as troubled about the state of rural post office services unless they should be further threatened by new developments. My late noble kinsman and my late noble relative, on their honeymoon in central Wales, came across a notice in a sub-post office window which said,
"Letters for the 5.30 post must be posted by six o'clock at the very latest".
That shows a consideration for human frailty which could be imitated by other commercial institutions. But as a former inner city MP, I did have exposure to the frailties of the Post Office itself. Mr Matthew Parris once called me a dinosaur because at Report stage of the Housing Act 1996 I had suggested that postmen should be included among those key workers eligible for affordable housing. However, I had myself noticed the difference in delivery performance between
1124
the W1 and the SW1 postal districts which met at Piccadilly in my former constituency. Both were a mix of residential and commercial customers; both important districts. But, by the chance of history, SW I did have affordable housing whereas W1 did not. Both in terms of delivery and of industrial relations, the difference showed. The cause of affordable housing has become more the vogue in the past five or six years so I shall continue to press the cause of postmen for it.
As my noble friend Lord Northbrook said, it is a commonplace that a handful of Conservative Back Benchers prevented the privatisation of the Post Office in the 1992 Parliament. That is now history, but because my party has always prided itself on learning from the past I am sorry that that small coterie of colleagues was unaware of how many of the advances in Post Office performance had been stimulated by private innovation.
Between 1526, when City Post was set up in Old Jewry in the City of London, and 1680 when the General Post was simply operating down six radial post roads from the capital, there was no local delivery at all until it was invented by William Docwra and his private penny post service in that latter year. The Duke of York, later James II, reacted to that infringement of the monopoly by taking him over. But Docwra was given a pension in 1689 for his achievement and was made controller of the Penny Post in 1697, the year Vanbrugh introduced a reference to it for the first time in one of his plays.
The renewal of Bath as a great city in the next century was the product of Beau Nash for fashion; of Wood, father and son, for architecture; and of Ralph Allen for entrepreneurship. Made postmaster of Bath at the age of 18, by intelligent pricing he revolutionised the delivery of mail between, on the one hand, the post road to Bristol and, on the other, the Plymouth road to the south and the Chester road to the north. With those yuppie profits he bought up all the quarries of Bath stone, which are the final climax of Bath's world heritage site reputation. It was likewise in Bath, a century later in 1780 and after Docwra's achievement, that John Palmer, the harbinger of DHL, created the special lightweight coaches which greatly accelerated delivery until the arrival of the trains.
I acknowledge Rowland Hill's first Penny Black adhesive stamp was the product of parliamentary initiatives in the 1830s. I suppose that the arrival of the new, self-adhesive stamp is an apposite place to end this catalogue, although I hope that it becomes easier for philatelists to purchase them in the old mode than it is at the moment.
My quotation from Burke about the Queen of France in due course went on,
"The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded but the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever".
I sense that economists and calculators, if not necessarily sophisters, will be needed to ensure Consignia's future. But the Royal Mail was a precious thing, a glory of Europe, and the Government will not be forgiven if it falls to pieces in our collective hands.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as 12th man I should be bringing drinks rather than playing. I was afraid that I would have nothing to say. But luckily, I believe that very few noble Lords have said what I am going to say and most of them are not going to like it. The Post Office does not pay my pension. I have belonged to no trade union, either managerial or for workers, that has supported the Post Office. I do not often defend things because they are 350 years old. Stage coaches have gone as have canals and gas lighting. I believe that we may march on.
I was very pleased when I read what Postcomm had done because it seems to me that for the past 10 years, even longer, both political parties have made a total muddle of what was once a great postal service. However, it has not been a great postal service for the past 10 years. No one can tell me about profits and losses. Monopolies must make a profit: if they do not, who will? A monopoly that makes a loss really must be re-examined, to see what it is doing.
My noble friend Lord Sawyer wrote a very good report. It starts by saying, more or less, that, in the 1990s, there was endless trouble with industrial relations in the Royal Mail—or "Con", as we should call it, "Consignia" being too long a word. It really surprises me that we have tolerated the deterioration in the service and done nothing about it. There is too much sentimentality attached to a great service. Eventually, all great things decline, and we must reexamine whether they are worth having.
In the National Audit Office's report, there is a little diagram showing service since 1996. The target is 92.5 per cent delivery. That is already 7.5 per cent below what it should be: if it is a universal service, let it be a universal service. The service has not got there—or anywhere near it—for the past five years, and I doubt that 2002 will show anything different. The management has been appalling, as has been shown by its failure to tackle any problems, to innovate or to see any other problems coming forth. It was the management that asked for commercial freedom. It is about to get it, but it is complaining. Although it is good when one is a monopoly, when there is competition, one suffers—about time too, thank you very much.
I get my mail on time, and most of it is not worth reading, just throwing away. Obviously, the postal service is too cheap. If it doubled the price, people would send me fewer letters, and we would all be happy. However, I have a little indirect experience. To declare my interest, I must say that I am chairman of a very small business, a business of only two people—three since last Monday—that works in design and publicity, producing brochures and the like. Its experience has been dire. Many small businesses lose money because of the ghastly service offered by "Con". It is a serious matter for small businesses. Such businesses survive on thin margins and must pay costs when something is not delivered or has not been received. They pay a huge price, and a business can go under, because of the inefficiency of the Post Office.
1126
So far, no one has spoken on behalf of consumers, but perhaps I am wrong about that. I do not really have great sympathy for rural post offices. People choose to live far away from everybody, in the middle of nowhere, so they must pay the cost. Basically, we urban dwellers massively subsidise people who fancy living in rural areas. It costs me a lot to subsidise them. It is the same as with car drivers, who do not pay the full marginal cost of driving and pollute my lungs. People who live in rural areas should be willing to pay the proper marginal social cost of delivery. Unfortunately, they have been subsidised for centuries and are used to it.
What is good about what Postcomm has done is that we are about to get some competition and some efficiency into the system. Forty per cent of the business will, of course, be removed; that is sad. However, 40 per cent of costs will also, I presume, be removed. I suspect that, in a loss-making enterprise, more than 40 per cent of costs will be removed, if I have not forgotten elementary economics. It costs them more to deliver things than they charge for it.
People ask, "Why such speed?". There are two points to make. We have always been ahead of the European Union in liberalising and privatising. I remember the complaints about telephones, gas and electricity. Today, we have better gas, electricity and telephone services thanks to that. We may not have the service of the Royal Mail, or "Con", but we will have better delivery of our post. There are better ways of doing it than what the Post Office does. Over the past 10 years, it has proved itself not to be a good business, and I do not see why, as a consumer, I should have any sentimentality. I just want my post delivered efficiently and regularly, and I do not care who delivers it, as long as it is delivered properly. Perhaps we will discover hidden virtues in "Con", and it will start doing a good job. As Dr Johnson said, hanging concentrates the mind; I hope that it will concentrate the mind of Consignia.
I am glad that Postcomm has done its job. It is exactly the job for which it was appointed. Monopolies that want commercial freedom ought to be able to face competition.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am the thirteenth man—person—to speak. That is doubly unfortunate, given the unfortunate nature of the number and the fact that thirteenth man simply does not exist. However, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on initiating the debate.
It is conventional for a debate such as this to be on a Motion to call attention to an issue, but it is especially apt in this case. Most people do not recognise the current parlous state of Consignia, nor the dramatic plans for its future and that of the mail. There are already several areas of concern regarding the present position of the company.
First, without being too party political, I think that it would be widely accepted that two decades of raiding of the Post Office's profits by the Treasury, before this

1127
Government came to power, prevented the Post Office from investing in improved services to meet the growing competition from fax and e-mail. The noble Lords, Lord Clarke of Hampstead and Lord Northbrook, spoke about that, but it is worth repeating. On some estimates, the Treasury took 90 per cent of Post Office profits in that period, and the process has continued, despite clear signs of Consignia being in trouble. For example, in 2000–01, under new financial arrangements, the Treasury received a further £93 million dividend when the Post Office made a pre-tax profit of only £66 million. In 1999–2000, the Treasury took a £150 million dividend when there was a loss, before tax, of £171 million.
As described by the chairman of Consignia,
"Our current financial position is already unsustainable. We are losing more than £1 million a day and need to reduce our cost base by at least £1.2 billion by 2003".
We wish Mr Leighton well in making those cost reductions, but there must be serious questions about whether it is possible to do so without a reduction in service levels.
Secondly, I move from finances to the specific situation of sub-post offices. In rural and deprived urban areas, sub-post offices play a hugely important part. We have heard from several Members, including the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, about the problems that sub-post offices face and about the opportunities that they could have, if given proper support, to become an increasingly important hub of community life.
In addition to the ongoing problem of reduction in numbers, we have been reminded of the doubts about the introduction of electronic payment of benefit and the financial consequences thereof for sub-post offices. The problem here, mentioned I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, is how on earth is a sub-post office to be sold in those circumstances, given the long-term consequences either of an ageing management tier or those sub-post offices going out of business.
Thirdly, there are the current and long-standing problems with regard to poor industrial relations. I join noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, in that respect. It is absolutely clear, notwithstanding the current problems of imminent strike action, that a major sea change within Consignia will be required in terms of a partnership method of working, whatever the detailed arrangements for its future.
Against the background of a desperately weak financial situation, continuation of the contraction of the sub-post office network and continuing seepage of written communications into e-mails and text messaging, what has been the government response? We know that it has been a combination of competition and Postcomm. Before turning to the competition proposals themselves, and running the risk of incurring the annoyance of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, on the subject of name changes, I should like to suggest that we change the name "Postcomm" to "OfPat". I make that suggestion because I think
1128
that "OfPat" would serve to remind us all, not least the regulator himself, of the world of the eponymous postman. In particular we shall be reminded of a rural world in which the universal service provision is a lifeline, not just an empty phrase.
More seriously, however, we know what has been proposed. Starting in a few weeks' time, some 30 per cent of the market is to be opened up. That phase is to be completed by 2004. Another 30 per cent is to be opened up by March 2006, and thereafter the remaining 40 per cent of the market will be opened. We are told that competition is necessary to improve efficiency and to foster innovation and flexibility. But, to quote Postcomm:
"We would expect an efficient Consignia to remain the largest provider of postal services".
That is one of the ironies of the whole business. No one believes that another company will come in to take over the difficult bits of what Consignia does now. That is a problem for the noble Lord, Lord Desai, because in reality there is no hangman's noose dangling in front of Consignia so far as concerns the bulk of the postal service. In no country which has experienced privatisation or liberalisation and competition have we seen two parallel postal services emerge. Nowhere else has another company come in to take over that element of what is done by the Post Office. Frankly, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the likely consequences of increased competition.
Let us examine how increased competition is to be achieved and how we are to enter that brave new world. Postcomm believes that Consignia should be allowed,
"more commercial flexibility in terms of how it provides the universal service. This relates to service specification and the overall level and structure of prices".
What on earth does that mean? It has three specific meanings. First, it means that Postcomm is conducting a price review, to be completed by this summer. Inevitably that will mean a recommendation for price increases. Although there may be an argument for a modest level of price increase after a period of price freeze, I think it is relevant to bear in mind the example of Sweden, which has already been mentioned in the debate, where the introduction of competition resulted in an increase in prices amounting to some 90 per cent.
Secondly, we have the intriguing suggestion that, in the long run, competition will mean a subsidy. Postcomm states:
"In the long-run, Postcomm recognises that in certain circumstances it might be justifiable to contemplate the safeguard of external funding mechanisms, such as a universal service support fund".
I think that that means a subsidy. I would welcome the view of the Minister and the Government as regards whether they consider that to be a part of the longterm future of a competitive postal system.
Thirdly, Postcomm envisages a redefinition of the universal service provision. It has stated:
"Postcomm recognises that there is a need to set out more clearly which of Consignia's services should be considered universal services recognising that this will change over time in the

1129
light of market developments and changes in customer requirements … Postcomm believes that it should consider whether the range of Consignia's products that are classed as universal services should be narrowed".
So there we have it: price rises, a potential subsidy and a narrowing of the universal service provision. You do not need to look into a crystal ball because you can read it in the book.
The National Audit Office shares my concerns, along with those of many other noble Lords, about the future of the universal postal provision. It has stated:
"If it were to lose significant custom to its competitors, Consignia might find it hard to finance the provision of a universal service at current prices or service levels. Postcomm have been carrying out intensive research into this issue".
I think we can guess what that research will reveal. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned in her opening remarks, the chairman of Consignia, Allan Leighton, has remarked:
"The Postcomm proposal to open up 30% of the market in just a few weeks time threatens the universal service. Competitors can now cherry-pick the profitable parts of our business, which substantially pay for the 'one-price-anywhere-in-the-country' promise of universal service. For Consignia, the regulator's approach represents death by a thousand cuts".
Mr Leighton is not exactly someone averse to competition, but he paints a very bleak picture. We agree with his view. While as a general principle noble Lords on these Benches support competition and open markets, we believe that there are some situations where the market will not work. We believe that the postal service is one such market, not least for the externalities which have been mentioned by a number of speakers in the debate.
The current plans for Consignia are, I believe, incompatible with the continuation of the universal service provision as we know it at acceptable price levels. The company is right to seek major efficiency savings but simply cannot be expected to survive major losses of profitable business. The Government should accept that, as with Railtrack, the wrong model has been chosen and should take action accordingly. At the very least, they should delay the implementation of the Postcomm proposals to give Consignia a chance to press ahead with its cost-cutting programme as well as to provide an opportunity for a fundamental rethink on the future structure and regulation of the postal service.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for so excellently introducing this debate and, indeed, for encouraging other noble Lords to take part. We have heard many interesting and, perhaps I may say, occasionally surprising interventions.
The Labour Party became our Government almost five years ago. Since April 2000, when the Postal Services Act was passed, the Post Office has deteriorated from being the best of its kind in the world—it was efficient and it had an excellent delivery performance rated at the top of the international league table—to what now can only be described as a
1130
bit of a disaster. It has converted a substantial annual profit in 1999 of almost half a billion pounds into a loss in 2000 of £267 million, and pre-tax losses of £281 million in the first six months of 2001.
A small part of that loss arose from the purposeless waste of £2 million on changing the name of the Post Office to the meaningless word "Consignia", which the noble Lord. Lord Clarke, has mentioned. I have spent over 20 years in marketing and I can tell noble Lords that it is an elementary tenet that if you have an established brand name, you exploit it. You do not do what the Post Office did, and discard it. What was the reason for this piece of stupidity? I shall quote from Consignia's press release:
"The new name describes the full scope of what the Post Office does in the way that the words "post" and "office" cannot. 'To consign' means `to entrust to the care of" … The new name reflects Consignia's place in the global distribution market".
In every English-speaking country the name "Post Office" and what it does is well understood. In France, Germany, Italy and Holland, they use their linguistic equivalent. Furthermore, the tall building in central London is still known as the "Post Office Tower", despite BT having been hived off from the Post Office over a quarter of a century ago. Believe it or not, before "Consignia" was selected—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, will be satisfied with this— on the short list and the favourite for the new name was "Mailt rack".
I have just spoken of efficiency. Apart from completely losing about I million letters a week, Consignia rarely meets its own targets to deliver, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, 92.5 per cent of first-class mail the next day. Instead, in 2001–02, it achieved only 89 per cent, with some black spots achieving only 80 per cent.
Instead of trying to improve this poor performance by increased productivity, it decided to move the goalposts. Consignia has recently announced the abandonment of the second-class post and, worse still, has said that its commitment to deliver to domestic customers before 9.30 a.m. will no longer be the norm. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, many small businesses which work from home will be hit by this.
The competition already faced, and shortly to be faced, by the Post Office is absolutely ferocious. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, commented that our Post Office is being forced into stronger competition than the rest of Europe as a result of the recommendations of Postcomm. Until last March, the Post Office had a monopoly over collection and delivery of mail weighing less than 350 grams or costing less than £1. Above that weight and cost, the Post Office faces 4,000 courier and express services of varying kinds. However, at the end of last month, nearly one-third of the Post Office's business was opened up, and by next year EC directives mean that the entire market will be open to unrestricted competition.
Other national post offices have been preparing themselves for this for some time, either by privatisation or by the lifting of internal restrictions, and acquisitions of interests in commercial firms. The

1131
Dutch Post Office was the first to be privatised. It now has a majority stake in TNT and is the most profitable in Europe. It is rapidly growing as a result of a number of acquisitions that its commercial freedom and being quoted on the Stock Exchange permit. The German Post Office, now publicly quoted, is linked with DHL. It controls more than 25 per cent of the European express and parcel business, and it enjoys the largest revenues of any European postal group. Who is left among the world-class players that Consignia and Parcelforce could link up with to avoid being itself swallowed up by ever more powerful international competition?
The question is how the Post Office is preparing itself for the challenge of meeting the demands of the increasing market of e-commerce, where, despite the fact that goods can be ordered from your armchair, someone has to create the infrastructure and full distribution administration to provide express delivery to the customer's door.
When I began my own mail order business 30 years ago this week, it owed its success in no small measure to the Post Office and its dedicated staff, who could not then have been more helpful. That is why somewhere in the headquarters of the Union of Postal Workers, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead knows, there is a silver salver that I presented 10 mark the dispatch of my 5 millionth parcel.
But what has happened to the innovative organisation and its formerly very co-operative staff? It has got bogged down by the dead hand of Whitehall and the Treasury. As long ago as 1992, the Conservative government announced a review of the structure of the Post Office. In 1994, the DTI published a consultation paper proposing the retention of post office counters in the public sector but with a greater degree of commercial freedom, and to sell 51 per cent of Royal Mail and Parcelforce to the public. However, that was not possible with the then government's wafer-thin majority and the implacable opposition of the Labour Party and at that time—indeed, even now—of the unions.
In 1999 the General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, talking about privatisation, was reported in the Daily Telegraph as boasting:
"If they don't back off, they have got a fight on their hands, and they have got a fight they can't possibly win".
When Consignia recently announced a potential loss of 30,000 jobs over a period of 12 months, it was soon forced to backtrack under the threat of strike action—although, of course, one has to comment that this is no way for management sensitively to work together with its workforce. The CWU has said:
"Consignia has confirmed that the 30,000 jobs were speculative arithmetic"—
whatever that is supposed to mean.
Last year the Post Office clocked up 62,000 days lost through strikes—half the total number of industrial disputes in Britain. In its own interests, the Communication Workers Union will have to face up
1132
to one fact—namely, that its members are no longer employed by a monopoly. If its customers do not get the service they want at a price they are prepared to pay, there will be other providers and other means by which they can do so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, that the two sides have simply got to work together better in order to find a proper way through this problem.
The forthcoming threatened strike will do nothing except drive customers further away. It was an earlier postal strike that resulted in the creation of the document exchange network, which now serves the legal profession so well all around the country.
So far I have spoken about the part that the Post Office itself and the unions have played in reducing the Post Office to its present parlous state, but the principal culprit is, as ever, the Government. On the Third Reading of the Postal Services Bill in the other place, the then Secretary of State said:
"This Bill guarantees a publicly owned Post Office. but with the commercial freedoms that will be needed to meet the challenges of the 21st Century … It will ensure a strong Post Office that is better able to serve all its customers in all parts of the country".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/4/00; cols. 939–940.]
None of that has come to be. What a broken promise.
But what has happened? The Post Office, which is supposed to be enjoying greater commercial freedom, suffers the disadvantage of being half in and half out of the public sector. The recent disastrous losses to which I have referred speak for themselves. Normally directors are answerable to the shareholders. In this case there is only one shareholder—the Government. Ministers have continued to interfere, and they must be answerable for that. In the words of Milton Friedman, what they do not understand is that,
"the Government has no business to he in business".
The Treasury, in the interests of saving £400 million, proposed to end the system of paying benefits through the Post Office and, more importantly, via the sub-post offices. The mere threat has severely diminished, if not destroyed, the capital value of hundreds of sub-post offices and has made small businesses, into which people have put their money, totally unviable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that sub-post offices closed under the Conservative government, but the numbers have escalated rapidly under this Government. Last year 547 closed, an absolute record.
The Government's failure to give the Post Office the full commercial freedom it needs and a clear mandate to go out into the market place, and the uncertainty that the present half-baked scheme has engendered, is undoubtedly a major cause of the lack of morale among all those involved in the Post Office.
I would say to the Government and to the unions that, with the total opening of the market to competition next year, the cosy monopoly that the Post Office has enjoyed for almost 350 years is coming to an end. The public will soon enjoy an unlimited choice. The commercial courier and parcel services, to say nothing of the German and Dutch Post Offices, are waiting to pounce. The vultures are circling around. Consignia and all connected with it must take note and try to do something at this late stage.
5.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, today's debate has proved yet again the strength of feeling which Consignia and the Post Office network arouse in the House and throughout the country. I congratulate the noble Baroness on raising the issue at this time, although its topicality did not immediately endear it to me.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that this is a critical moment for the Post Office, and I agree with three of his four points. It is essential that we have a strong board and it is important that we have a good chairman and pay him properly; it is enormously important that the DTI responds quickly to the corporate plan of the Post Office when it is provided; and it is equally essential that the Post Office is not used as a cash cow.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, or, indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Hoyle and Lord Desai, that we are in front of the rest of the world in opening up the postal market. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, pointed out, far from Britain being in a leadership role, the rest of Europe has been liberalising its post offices much more rapidly and for some time. Sweden had full liberalisation in 1993; Finland in 1994; the Netherlands had partial liberalisation in 2000; and Germany had partial liberalisation in 1998. So we should not fool ourselves that we are leading the way on this issue.
The Government's goals are clear. We want a universal service that everyone can rely on. We want faster, more reliable mail deliveries; a strong network of modern post offices; an effective partnership between management and unions; and a better Post Office for people to work in. That is why we are delivering the investment and reform that Consignia needs.
Four key areas have been raised in the debate. Perhaps I may take them in turn. They are: the performance of the Post Office; the relationship between government and the Post Office; the Postcomm proposals; and the rural network. I turn first to performance. Consignia has a long history of relatively high performance compared with its international counterparts. It has high standards for its universal and other postal services. For example, the vast majority of first-class letters are delivered the next day to homes and businesses throughout the United Kingdom—some 89 per cent in 2000 and 2001. As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, rightly pointed out, its prices are well below those charged for similar services by its international competitors. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that, although junk mail may not be to everyone's taste, it has made a major contribution to the economics of the Post Office over the past 30 or 40 years. On that basis alone, it is an important issue.
However, compared with its main competitors, the Post Office has been slipping. Between 1992 and 1996, Deutsche Post's productivity increased by 35 per cent, overtaking the Post Office, whose productivity
1134
increased by only 13 per cent during the same period. The UK's postal service went from being a leader in the 1980s to being a laggard in the 1990s. Today, in the fast expanding European market for express mail services, the Dutch, the French and the Germans are all ahead. They have all diversified to a much greater extent than Consignia.
There are immense challenges ahead. The company is losing money; its costs are continuing to rise while growth in mail continues to be slow, not least because of e-mail. Above all, the company is not yet delivering consistently for its customers.
People in the company are working hard. We know that in many parts of the country they are meeting or exceeding their targets. But we know also that there still too many places in the country where customers cannot count on reliable mail delivery. That is largely because there are still too many industrial relations problems.
Industrial relations have over the years been nothing short of disastrous. Over 800,000 days were lost to strike action in 1996–97 alone—when according to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the Post Office was in a wonderful state before the Labour Government came to power. These are on-going, long-term problems which need to be solved. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, on the helpful contribution that he is making and thank him for it. He is right to argue for partnership and that this will require a change of attitude on the part of both management and the workforce. As Allan Leighton commented in a recent letter:
"If we could stop fighting each other within the Post Office and fight the competition, we should have a much better chance of success".
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, about the importance in these situations of full consultation and the involvement of middle management.
Consignia needs to catch up. The management needs to seize the opportunities of commercial freedom given to it by this Government. I am afraid that a long and successful history will not ensure that the business continues to be relevant and efficient in the modern world.
I now turn to the relationship between government and the Post Office. The issue that we tackled when we came into office was that of enabling the Post Office to invest and move forward. For years, Post Office management and unions called for greater commercial freedom to allow them to respond to a changing market and changing customer needs. They were not granted that freedom. The previous administration was paralysed by indecision on this issue throughout all the years it was in power, and it used the Post Office as a cash cow by taking 80 per cent of profits back to the Treasury. The Post Office was unable to use its profits to invest in improving its operation and its services to customers. It was also prevented from making the strategic investment needed to expand its business in new directions.
Under our reform programme, we have given Consignia the commercial freedom long sought by management and unions—the freedom to borrow and

1135
invest—and we have reduced the dividend from 90 per cent under the Conservatives to 40 per cent, a more normal commercial return.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, the £151 million in 1999–2000 was on profits of £470 million before the exceptional write-off. That would be a perfectly normal commercial position to be in when there is a paper write-off of that sort.
We have also put in place a regulatory framework to ensure the provision of universal postal services and to promote the interests of consumers of those services. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that the idea of being a regulator is that we have fair regulation. On the question that will arise of the dividend, a decision will be taken by the Government in the light of the five-year plan. Converting the Post Office into Consignia underlined the new commercialisation of the business.
We have also been strengthening the management of the company. We have appointed new non-executives to the board of Consignia, including Allan Leighton, now acting chairman; and we have supported new executive appointments, including a new finance director. We are continuing to strengthen the management of the company through the open recruitment of a new chairman and a new chief executive for the network business.
I have seen nothing since we introduced these measures to suggest that they do not provide Consignia with an excellent framework within which to operate its business. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. None of the current problems can be attributed to the new structure of the Post Office. I stand by what I said. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, that all the problems that he raised are long-standing ones. He made no connection between any of them and the Postal Services Act.
The third issue I should like to discuss is Postcomm's proposals. World-wide, the postal industry has been challenged by competition from new technologies and from other service providers. To meet customer demand, postal operators throughout the world are having to upgrade and diversify their traditional services, developing added-value products and using new technologies. The value-added growth market in parcels, logistics and international businesses are highly competitive. Even in the traditional domestic letter market, where there has been relatively little competition from other service providers, there is increasing competition from new technology.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked a number of questions about Postcomm's proposals. The Postal Services Act 2000 provides that it is Postcomm's primary duty to exercise its function in a manner best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. That is the legal requirement. Its responsibility to introduce competition is secondary to that primary legal duty.
Postcomm's document, Proposals for Effective Competition in UK postalServices, published on Thursday 31st January, is a public consultation. We fully expect concern about the universal service
1136
obligation to be thoroughly considered as part of that consultative process. We would not expect competition to be introduced until it was entirely compatible with the continued delivery of a universal postal service.
I should also stress that the business which is opened up to competition is not handed over to the competitor. Of the other countries that have liberalised, the Finnish Post Office still has 100 per cent of the letters market and the Swedish Post Office still has 94 per cent. It is not a question of the business being taken away. On marginal costs, the profitability of the business is not hugely affected unless unusually high or excessive profits were being taken on that part of the business. That is the issue in this case.
I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that the universal postal service is a fundamental duty of the Post Office. That is a different issue from the rural post office network. I cannot go into the question of broadband at this stage because it is very complicated, but we have given £30 million to the RDAs to experiment with other ways of achieving it in the regions where there is no broadband network. The huge cost involved could not be justified in a world in which only 1 per cent of the network that could use broadband is doing so.
The fourth key issue is the rural network. There is an understandable concern about the need to maintain the sub-post office network and ensure that it has a viable long-term future. The post office network plays a vital role in our society. Many of the vulnerable and elderly rely on it to deliver services to them. It is also a convenient place for the community as a whole to access government services, financial products and, of course, postal services.
However, the network has been in decline for years. The reality is that over the years the post office network has failed to respond to changes. Consequently, it has been contracting for many years. There were 3,500 closures between 1979 and 1997. not because the Post Office was actively closing outlets, but because no suitable replacements could be found to take over from the sub-postmasters who resigned or retired. Demographic changes in many rural areas, together with social and economic changes such as those in working and shopping habits and wider car ownership have combined to reduce the business on which many post offices have traditionally depended. Some 56 per cent of the rural offices that closed in 2000–01 operated for only limited hours and served fewer than 70 customers per week. Half of them had no associated shop or other retail business. It is also important to remember that of the 547 closures in 2000–01, only four were as a result of a Post Office decision. The others resulted from no one being found to take over the services.
As with the mail and parcel business, we inherited a declining post office network. Unlike the previous administration, who did nothing, we have not shrunk from the challenge of securing a viable future for the network. We contributed nearly £500 million to put back on track the Horizon project to computerise the

1137
whole post office network. That project, initiated in 1996 by the previous government, was running three years late, due to setbacks and delays. Computerisation of the network was completed on time in spring last year. The Horizon project remains the best means of enhancing the services offered by post offices by attracting new clients and services to strengthen the viability of the network in the longer term.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the Government contributed £480 million to the cost of the Horizon automation programme. The write down in the accounts was a paper loss resulting from compliance with accounting standard FRS11, because at that time the future revenues generated by Horizon were not sufficiently certain. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, that £480 million was not a loss of income; it was a write-off. We contributed that money to the Horizon project. As regards introducing ACT, the original Horizon programme contemplated the automation of the whole system.
In response to the decline of rural post offices, we commissioned the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit to develop a strategy for the post office network. In June 2000, the PIU published its recommendations and we accepted them all. Not only that, we earmarked the £270 million necessary over three years to start the implementation.
A formal requirement was placed on Consignia in November 2000 to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures. In the first instance, that applies until 2006. To reinforce that, we have made available a fund to support community initiatives to sustain or reopen post offices in rural communities.
A number of other issues have been raised in the debate. It is difficult to make simple comparisons with Sweden. The significant rise in postal prices in Sweden since 1997 is due partly to a change in the VAT regime. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, referred to the powers of Postcomm. The role of Postcomm is to ensure the provision of a universal service. All Postcomm duties are subject to that requirement and it is independent from the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the possibility that Postcomm might, in due course, consider it necessary to contemplate a universal service support fund—that is, a levy on other licence holders to support the services of the universal service provider. Any such arrangement would require changes to the current regulatory regime. That is not under active consideration.
The postal reforms brought in last year were designed to give the Post Office commercial freedom and freedom from political interference in micro management and to further the interests of consumers. Subject to the over-riding priority of ensuring the universal services, which we enshrined in legislation for the first time, we believe that greater competition should be contemplated as a way of providing customers with greater choice and even better service levels. We believe that the reforms that we have put in place will allow Consignia to respond to increased competition in postal service markets and changes in customer demands.
1138
We further believe that we have a reform programme for the post office network that will enable it to move forward and adapt to the changes that it has faced and continues to face.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he answer one other question that I asked about banking facilities and services being offered by post offices? That is a very important issue.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not dealt with that issue. We continue to have negotiations on that. We are on track to produce the service in 2003, which is the critical moment for its introduction.
As I said, we have a reform programme for the Post Office network that will enable it to move forward and adapt to the changes that it has faced and continues to face. A great deal of progress has already been made through investment and reform. Much remains to be done, but we believe that the management and workforce of Consignia will rise to the challenge and ensure that the company prospers and grows in the tough environment in which it finds itself.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I have no time, but I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I hope that the Minister will write to us with the answers to the questions that he was not able to respond to in the time available. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Employment Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Wales
5.39 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach rose to call attention to the impact of devolution on the economic and social conditions in Wales; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is nearly two years since we had a debate in your Lordships' House devoted exclusively to Wales. Today was also the nearest date to St David's Day that I could obtain for this debate. From the number of noble Lords who have agreed to take part, I believe that there would be real value in having an annual debate on Wales, preferably as close as possible to 1st March, as happens in the other place.
This year marks the third anniversary of the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales. As we look back, it is remarkable how smoothly the process of devolution in Wales has gone. It is also

1139
remarkable how contrary that history is to the warnings of those who opposed devolution. Devolution has not led to the break-up of the UK; indeed, the demand for independence has waned. An extra tier of government has not meant greater uncertainty and delays for business: rather, the Assembly has provided a platform from which all sizes of business have been able to voice their concerns. The devolution process has also not resulted in power being taken away from individuals. The Government and supporters of devolution can look back with some pride at how much has been achieved.
Opinion polls on the issue of devolution have been taken regularly since 1997, and a number of clear trends have emerged. There is less demand for an independent Wales; the number of those opposed to the establishment of any type of assembly has decreased dramatically; and a majority now favour significant devolution.
I believe that it is helpful to distinguish the concept of devolution from the current working of the Assembly and its elected Members and civil servants. I also believe that the devolved government of Wales has grown in popularity because it is a symbol of an increasing national identity for Wales, reflecting growing self-confidence and self-belief, and because it is perceived as a way of giving Wales greater power within the United Kingdom. The same sentiment, alas, does not extend to the Assembly's effectiveness. The perceived haranguing over its name, its procedures and its building, the demand for more resources at a time when its budget is under-spent, and the turmoil that has afflicted each of the parties were all reflected in the poor turnout for last autumn's Swansea East by-election.
We should, however, also remember that the Assembly has faced enormous problems. Initially, there was a minority government; then came the electronics crisis, the fuel crisis, the flooding crisis, the Objective I problems, foot and mouth disease and the loss of jobs at Corus. I believe that the Assembly deserves credit for handling those problems. To begin with, the transition from minority government to an effective coalition was made smoothly. Moreover, the Assembly's management of the foot and mouth crisis—in which the Assembly's regional offices played a critical role, and which involved the Minister for Rural Affairs co-ordinating local government, the Army, the police, the Environment Agency, the vets and MAFF—showed the people of Wales that the Assembly was more than just a talking shop.
The new formula which has been developed to allocate the £3 billion grant to local authorities is a significant improvement on the old formula used by the old Welsh Office, largely because it recognises the extra cost of services in deprived areas and sparsely populated rural areas. Even if one disagrees with them, the Assembly's plans in spheres such as the economy, health and education are professional pieces of work and a basis for serious debate.
The Assembly is open and transparent in its deliberations. It is also an improvement on the Welsh Office in that it allows more effective debate in Wales by those who are closer to the subjects under discussion. Such debate has also proved to be a source of new ideas, such as proposals for the Children's Commissioner and NHS reform that places carers on local health bodies. In all of that, I believe that we should pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the Assembly Presiding Officer who has shown tremendous commitment and fair-mindedness in wanting to make the Assembly work as a body.
One issue that must be considered is the Assembly's current powers and the way in which it works. A number of problems have emerged. First, in the current Session of the Assembly, the Administration asked that four Welsh Bills be included in the Queen's Speech. None of them was successful. As if to add insult to injury, the debate on the Health Bill, which had sections relating to Wales, took place in Westminster before it had even been considered by the Assembly.
Secondly, although the subject committees of the Assembly have an explicit policy development role, they have no real way of ensuring that the results of that role are fed into Westminster policy. Having been involved in policy development for some time myself, I find it difficult to imagine the committees being truly effective in that role when the distinction between the executive and the legislature in the body corporate is far from clear.
Thirdly, new primary legislation passed at Westminster can reduce as well as increase the Assembly's powers. The extent of secondary legislation varies from Bill to Bill and is at the discretion of the department in London that sponsors the Bill. I could give other examples.
Of course I recognise that some will argue that the Government of Wales Act 1998 could be implemented more effectively if draft Bills were published, if there were improved procedures for influencing primary legislation and if Ministers gave more notice so that committees could scrutinise legislation more effectively. I have no doubt that all those steps would be helpful. In my experience, however, the sheer pressure of deadlines makes it practically difficult to implement such proposals. I have therefore reached the conclusion that—even if the proposals were partly implemented; I cannot see how they could ever effectively be fully implemented—there will remain a strong prima facie case for us at Westminster to revisit the issue and to amend the Act to give primary legislative powers to the Assembly in spheres that are currently devolved.
Devolution is here to stay. The referendum, however narrow the result, is irreversible. By granting the Assembly the powers of primary legislation, we could strengthen the process of devolution and allow the people of Wales greater input into their legislation. Timing also is important. It is far better that the change is made when the political colour of the governments in Cardiff and Westminster are the same.

1141
Most important of all, I believe that strengthening devolution is the best way of strengthening the ties that bind the United Kingdom together.
I shall now leave devolution and turn to economic and social conditions in Wales. Devolution is not an end in itself. Although the Assembly will be judged ultimately by its effectiveness in delivering public services—better schools and better hospitals—it will be judged also by the prosperity of the economy and job creation. It is far too early to judge the effect of devolution on economic and social conditions, as it is only now that policies are being drawn up for Wales that are distinct from those for England. However, let us not underestimate the challenge faced in increasing prosperity.
Wales is currently languishing relative to the rest of the mainland UK. It did well in adjusting to the momentous changes of the early 1980s, but it has not succeeded in solving its serious long-term problems. I shall give a few facts. Prosperity in Wales, measured by GDP per capita, is nearly 20 per cent below the UK average and has been in decline for the past 25 years. If the status quo continues, this situation can only get worse.
In the first half of the last decade, spending on research and development per head, as a proportion of output in Wales, averaged one third of the UK ratio. Employment in the public sector in Wales accounts for a higher proportion of GDP and jobs than in any other mainland UK region; and since 1984 the public sector created 22 times as many jobs as the manufacturing sector. Moreover, activity rates are as low in Wales as in the most depressed parts of the big cities of England and Scotland. By any standards, and party politics apart, this is a grim picture.
A great deal of debate on how to redress the situation has focused on help from outside Wales: reviewing the Barnett formula, securing Objective I funding and increasing foreign investment, all of which are important. But their significance should not disguise the fact that the first of those is a grant and the second a subsidy, both of which will decline as prosperity increases relative to the rest of the UK. Most inward investment has also involved government subsidies, a great deal, regrettably, being in routine low value-added manufacturing and now in call centres in the service sector, paying as a result relatively low wages.
I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of this or previous governments or the tireless work of the WDA in attracting foreign investment to Wales. Without it, we would be facing a catastrophe. Yet the clear picture which emerges is that for over 25 years the Welsh economy has languished. Against that background business as usual is not an option for Wales—I believe that it is a recipe for continued decline. The rest of the world is changing at such an extraordinary pace that simply to keep up it is necessary that much more is done than in the past. Wales cannot cut taxes or change interest rates, so its room for manoeuvre is limited. Therefore, there has to be a seismic shift in thinking and practice.
The WDA made a salutary point in its most recent corporate plan which states:
"Neither governments nor development agencies generate economic prosperity—only business can do that".
It is right. High value-added jobs paying attractive wages are created by private companies. If Wales is to become a knowledge driven economy with a thriving private sector, investing in innovation and R&D, the one area which is critical to its success is education. However, the challenge is again enormous. Professor Kevin Morgan of Cardiff University spelt it out with brutal clarity:
"One wonders if we have the skills to enter the knowledge economy, when one in four of the population is functionally illiterate and two in five functionally innumerate".
While I strongly support devolution I must confess that I have reservations about certain current policies. Education is critical to economic success. Yet the present ministerial proposals to scrap school league tables, abolish tests for seven year-olds, have more learning through play and fewer formal lessons in the early years, ruling out any reliance on the private sector and rejecting specialist schools place in jeopardy the chances of Wales making education the key to future prosperity.
The rejection of specialist schools is extraordinary as the one kind of specialist school which Wales does have—namely, Welsh language schools—have been a huge success. It seems odd therefore that in view of the overwhelming success of specialist schools in England they should be rejected in Wales. Only this morning I received a newsletter from one of the first city technology colleges which had hosted a visit from those developing the Welsh baccalaureate qualification. Meinir Richards stated after visiting the college in Birmingham:
"The standards of achievements, the superb facilities, the wealth of experiences offered, together with staff and student enthusiasm and commitment were all topics of conversation on our return journey. The general concluding theme was that we had a great deal to learn from the Kingshurst experience".
The Assembly and the Cabinet have a crucial role to play in the future of Wales. However, the danger is that they embrace so overwhelmingly the views of trade unions and local authorities that they fail to take those radical steps which are necessary to Wales becoming a world-class economy.
I wish to say something about the language. We on this side of the House have a proud record of supporting the Welsh language and Welsh culture, setting up S4C, S Pedwar Ec, passing the Welsh Language Act and extending the teaching of Welsh in schools. I have always felt that devolution was in the first place more about the preservation of language and culture and not economics. The Assembly more than any other body is responsible for creating a bilingual nation. We must be supportive of its efforts. The language must survive in an age of globalisation. The challenge it faces is to develop programmes and policies which will support and strengthen the growth of the language while at the same time being inclusive of those who do not speak it. I firmly believe it can be done. I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, it is fitting that this Motion was introduced by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. He is, as it were, a good deed in a naughty world. He is that rarer axis, a Conservative who I believe spoke and voted in this House for Welsh devolution. He again spoke with enormous effect in supporting his view. It seems to me that his party has now, as it were, caught up with him and has recognised the value of devolution for Wales and, indeed, for the Conservative Party which has a constructive role in Welsh affairs in a way that perhaps it has not had since its heavy election defeat. I refer to that of 1868!
Devolution is a massive achievement for this Government. The Labour Government can take enormous pride in that. I refer in particular to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who evidently forced it through. The distinguished array of speakers in the debate—I believe that there are three former Secretaries of State, the presiding officer of the Assembly and other distinguished political figures—is testimony to the importance and, I believe, the success of devolution.
I agree very much with what the noble Lord said about the positive aspects of devolution as it seems to me that it has often had an unfair press. It has been unfairly criticised partly because of a kind of ignorant disrespect with which Wales is commonly treated—a kind of Anne Robinson syndrome that seems to have spread throughout the commentary on Wales—and partly because many commentators have unreal expectations. Devolution was bound to be asymmetrical. Wales is simply different from Scotland. Its history is different. It will take time for devolution to have an impact. It takes a long time to shift the effect of 1,000 years of centralised rule. Wales does not have the civic tradition of Scotland. It did not have a constitutional convention and so devolution is a learning process. However, as the noble Lord indicated, it is a learning process that is going well in many ways.
It will be generally agreed that the inheritance of the Welsh Assembly has been difficult, particularly in the economic sphere. The noble Lord indicated more clearly than I could how the indices of well-being and economic prosperity are disappointing in Wales and have been for a considerable time. But in a way that almost confirms the point about devolution; namely, that previous methods of decision-making, however distinguished the holders of the positions involved, have not been effective. Wales has lagged behind. Its indices of growth and its indices in terms of health and housing are inferior to those of the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard that GDP in Wales still lags behind by up to 20 per cent and is not improving. There is a lesson, as it were, here for this side of the House. It was commonly believed that nationwide, centralised planning would produce equality. It has not. Wales is not equal. The regions of the north of England are not equal. The effect of such planning over recent decades has been to enhance disparities rather than to diminish them.
1144
As we have heard, the economic background to the National Assembly taking power in Wales in 1999 was difficult. Since then Wales has had the various economic features that the noble Lord mentioned such as foot and mouth disease and the problems with the Corus steelworks. Wales has its own social needs. Not long ago we discussed the Barnett formula. I believe that many of us feel that the particular needs of Wales are not now being met under the needs assessment within that formula. Nevertheless it seems to me that the noble Lord is absolutely right in taking the positive and relatively buoyant view that he did.
There are signs, particularly since the coalition took office under Rhodri Morgan, of a clear agenda emerging, particularly in the social area. There are many inadequacies—in no way do I dissent from the noble Lord's comments in that regard—but the Assembly is beginning to formulate a distinctive social agenda.
On health, we have a distinctive Welsh perspective that seeks to preserve the essence of the health service and to build a particular Welsh commitment to local healthcare, to community provision and to doing things differently from England. There are also specific benefits such as the freezing of prescription charges, which is highly beneficial.
On education, the record is mixed; I do not dissent from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, in that regard. There has been a strong commitment to cut class sizes and to increase the range of technical provision for secondary schools. We heard only a day or two ago the very welcome news that student maintenance grants will be restored to some degree in higher education in Wales. In that regard, we hope. as it were, that they bite some of our other generals in England.
In social terms, devolution has meant that a distinctive agenda is beginning to emerge, but not as strongly as in Scotland. In the economic sphere, that is less clearly the case. The Welsh Assembly has weaker powers than the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh economy is more vulnerable than that of Scotland. There are signs of a proactive policy. I mention one in particular—there are signs that the Assembly, through developing IT and skills, is trying to create the new phenomenon of an entrepreneurial Wales. Wales has been rather good at producing university teachers and unproductive people of that kind, but it has not been very good at promoting business or the entrepreneurial concept. There are still a very small number of Welsh businesses on the London Stock Exchange—I believe that there are just over 20. That has been a very weak feature of Welsh life.
In connection with the loss of jobs at the Corus steelworks, there have been attempts to at least repair the damage. The rural recovery plan and the way in which Wales handled foot and mouth disease are signs of the virtue in devolution—they are signs of local decision-making being surprisingly effective. Out of the carnage and mayhem Wales has shown distinct signs of recovery.

1145
I take great pleasure in the fact that the Welsh economy is now viewed from an all-Wales perspective. That is a novelty in history. It is something that we have long needed and it is appropriate not merely for Wales but also for the era of globalisation, which the nation state has eroded—localised centres of decision-making are now appropriate. Wales is forming its own priorities and will, I hope, continue to do so. There is a Welsh perspective on the euro, the rate of sterling, Europe, enlargement, regional government in Europe and even on aspects of foreign policy—for example, on relations with the Republic of Ireland.
My conclusion is very much that which the noble Lord expressed so well; namely, that devolution should go much further. We cannot stay as we are; primary legislation must certainly be extended, along with powers of indicative economic planning. We have had only one measure of Welsh primary legislation, which I believe was improved in this House. I hope that that will be the precursor of other such legislation.
My final point is rather more critical and involves a point of detail. Wales has increasingly established its identity under devolution. It has not merely a cultural identity—in particular, those of us who are Welsh speakers are very strongly aware of that—spanning many decades but also a civic identity of a kind that it has not really previously had in its entire history. It is very important to preserve that by preserving institutions. My time is up. I add that I deeply regret the suggestion that the University of Wales should be undermined. I very much hope that what is otherwise a success story will not be marred by that proposal.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for initiating this debate. His was by far the most constructive and sympathetic voice on the Conservative Benches during the whole of the devolution debate. His standing in the academic world and as head of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit during the Thatcher era and his known concern for public morality lent great weight to his approach to the well being of this important experiment in devolution.
I am a lifetime supporter of the movement for a domestic Parliament for Wales. I introduced a 10-minute rule Bill in, I believe, 1966 that was drafted by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and which would have established a domestic Parliament for Wales with much wider powers than the Assembly has. I agree that it is a shame that the Welsh Assembly did not have greater powers.
We must face the fact that the Assembly, which is the first legitimate, democratically elected body to represent the whole of Wales, must be judged in the first instance by how well and how efficiently and sensitively its elected Members are discharging the duties that have been devolved to them. After all, before devolution, those duties were largely discharged by a Secretary of State and the staff at the Welsh Office.
1146
The first impact of devolution in Wales is that it has illustrated to many more people the geographical problems of Wales. I have always believed that one of Wales' problems is that, because of communications, the east-west division is almost more important than the north-south division. In our area, in east Wales—I refer to east mid-Wales, but I know that the same point is true of east north Wales and east south Wales—we hear far less about the Assembly's goings on because of the way in which television aerials are arranged, the role of the press and so on. Many of those people do not know what is going on. That great problem needs to be addressed. I am very sorry that the Welsh Assembly was not given some control over the media, particularly over television.
The greatest impact of devolution is that the people of Wales now appreciate more the economic, social and educational problems that beset them. That led in a relatively short time to the emergence of' an attitude that differs from that of the Assembly. We need an approach to Welsh problems that is more holistic than we have previously experienced. The guiding principles of the plan for Wales, which was set out by the Assembly in October 2001, were a clear indication of that holistic approach. The plan followed the report by the First Minister on Assembly approaches and achievements by the governing coalition.
On health, we should bear in mind the enormous problems revealed by Dr Ruth Hall, the chief medical officer in Wales, in her first report to the Assembly. Those problems include smoking levels in Wales, the high alcohol consumption rate, the considerable increase in drug abuse—especially of hard drugs—in Wales and soaring mental health problems, especially among young people in Wales.
Much of the Principality's population were found to be obese and overweight. In the light of those findings, I was particularly impressed by the health promotion action plan, which was evolved by the Assembly to deal with that enormous problem. That should involve the whole community, local health alliances, schools, universities, workplaces and, I hope, responsible help from the media. I live in a well integrated town in a rural area and in a very settled community. In a strange way, such involvement takes place naturally there. I believe that that type of approach is necessary. There is a sign of a different kind of approach to politics in the Assembly. Its Members are no longer fighting the battles of Westminster in a small way in Cardiff; they are evolving their own approach.
Perhaps I may mention one or two problems that worry me. The first is the failure of the Assembly to tackle in any way the problems of quangos. One of the main arguments in favour of devolution was that nominated bodies of favoured Conservative and Labour government nominees would be replaced by an elected body. We did not have an Assembly in order to perpetuate quangos, and I do not believe that the Assembly is by any means an over-worked body. I do not consider its hours of work and application to be as great as, for example, those of the House of Commons or this place. It is very easy for the Assembly's Members to fail to attack some of the problems of

1147
quangos. They might be too easily influenced by their officials and the approach of, "Let the status quo remain". I ask: where in the range of priorities of the Welsh Assembly does the replacement of quangos lie?
The success of the Assembly depends upon the ability, knowledge, dedication and application of its Members. It is up to each political party to ensure that its candidates for the Assembly want to make it work and that they are people who have a good deal to contribute to its success. It is not a training ground for Westminster. It would be a poor one in which to train for Westminster and it would not be good for the Assembly if it attracted that kind of person.
The Assembly should not try to mirror the party battles of Westminster. I believe that it should form its own agenda for Wales. So far as concerns the Cabinet in Wales, it would not worry me if it were formed of a coalition of Members of all parties. The Members could evolve the idea of filling the post of Minister with the best person for the job. After all, they are discharging administrative functions. Their other powers are very limited.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, that the Assembly has made a good start. I believe that its Members are evolving a greater sense of confidence and I hope that they will not settle for the second best in anything. They can have their own—that is, a different—approach. I was brought up with the old idea of party politics in which everyone attacked everyone else. I was in a profession which had an adversarial system, which I enjoyed enormously, as I do in politics. But I am not at all sure that the adversarial system taken to the extremes to which it has been taken in this country is the right approach for a Welsh Assembly. I want to say only that it has started well. Every year we should have at least one debate in this House in order to consider the evolving problems and evolving solutions of the Welsh Assembly.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I, too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for initiating this debate. Devolution is a field in which I have participated and is something which I have tried to achieve for nearly 50 years. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has been a consistent supporter. He once confessed to me that when he was a boy at school he came to a Labour Party meeting in Swansea where I was the principal speaker. Such was my influence on him that he promptly went off and joined the Conservative Party. Had I known that at the time, I might well have curtailed my speaking engagements.
The National Assembly for Wales owes its powers to statute. I am pleased to report that in the exercise of its functions I believe it is making good progress. There should be a recognition of that. The Assembly had a very steep learning curve. There are not many bodies where the members are thrown in at the deep end and are expected to swim. For new bodies with wide powers. there is frequently a running-in period.
1148
I recently commented on the Assembly's disappointing record of law-making in the form of subordinate legislation in its first year. Long before I became Secretary of State, I was the first Welsh politician to embrace the concept of giving such lawmaking powers to a Welsh assembly. How were those powers being used? In the first year, of about 200 statutory instruments passed, only a handful differed from those of Westminster. Recently a robust defence has been made on behalf of the Assembly's performance in the following years. In 2001 the Assembly passed 230 pieces of subordinate legislation of which 81 orders, representing 35 per cent of the total, were unique to Wales or had significant differences in drafting. Others may want to analyse the differences. That is, indeed, a matter for congratulation.
I constantly hear plaintive cries that the Assembly is not able to fulfil the needs of Wales because it lacks the power to pass primary legislation. I should say two things. The dramatic increase in secondary legislation is indicative of the areas and extent to which the Assembly is able to act with effect. Against that background, it is incumbent on those who complain of the lack of powers to spell out precisely where the existing powers of the Assembly have proved to be significantly inadequate. What would they have done more, and substantially more? My attitude is sympathetic, even though I adopted and proposed the present system in the first devolution Bills.
The time will surely come when another look will have to be taken at the difference in the powers of each of our devolved legislatures. The machinery of government should be based on the needs of the present and the future and should not rely on the differing historical reasons for its particular form of creation.
The robust defence which has been made makes no response to my plea for wider powers in Westminster legislation to allow the Assembly to achieve even greater diversity and flexibility. I trust that the Assembly is seeking to persuade Westminster on that point.
Legislation is only a part of executive governing. Much, if not most, of my work for over 13 years as a Minister was in implementing policy and effecting non-statutory policy. That is where the Assembly is really coming into its own. Just published is a scholarly report on education and life learning by the Assembly's committee. There is not time to go into the details tonight—my noble friend Lord Morgan touched on one aspect—but I venture to say that only through the setting up of the Assembly could work of that kind be given a priority by parliamentarians,
Lastly, I turn to the problem of the Welsh language in its heartland, the very existence of which is denied by some. I endorsed the suggestion made by others for an independent inquiry. In its wisdom, the Assembly has decided to go down a different road and has entrusted the work to its culture committee. The problem remains the same. Welsh speaking in the Welsh heartlands is under great pressure. On the

1149
other hand, Welsh speaking, following enlightened education policies, is increasing in the urban areas. Is that enough or will we never be forgiven in Wales if we allow the traditional Welsh-speaking areas to decline any further?
There is a problem of inward migration from England, which is shared by attractive parts of England, too, such as the Lake District and Cornwall. Low-income families have problems in buying affordable homes and, indeed, in finding any employment. Perhaps I may contrast the place of birth of residents in our industrial communities.
In Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr, Rhondda Cynon Taff, and Neath Port Talbot, over 90 per cent were born in Wales. The proportion falls significantly in North and West Wales. In Conway it is only 53.5 per cent; Denbighshire, 57 per cent; Ceredigion, 64 per cent; Anglesey, 67.7 per cent; Pembrokeshire, nearly 70 per cent and Gwynedd nearly 72 per cent. Those are the figures from the Wales Year Book 2001. I have no reason to believe that they are inaccurate. They speak for themselves.
I believe that an authoritative view is needed. First, what kind of balanced communities, realising the present and inclusive make-up of those communities, should we aim for in the traditional areas? Secondly, are there human rights and European Union limitations on new policies? Thirdly, what should be done positively to encourage employment? Fourthly, what has been and will be the effect of current and proposed planning powers, in particular as regards house building? Fifthly, are our educational policies working in those areas to ensure the continuance of the Welsh language and to give significant help to encourage learners? Those are some of the problems and they bristle with difficulties.
I remember a Secretary of State, the leader of the then GLC, coming to me with a plan to export huge numbers of pensioners from London. I told him rather sharply that we had enough problems. I asked him who would provide the housing and the health services. Those are the problems which face what I believe to be the Welsh heartlands. I hope that whatever machinery is adopted, it will fulfil the tasks expected of it.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, as a humble Englishman, I am honoured to take part in the debate. When I was appointed as an English Secretary of State for Wales, the only people who rejoiced were some in Glamorgan who thought that I used to play cricket for them. Alas, it was a different person.
As this is the first Welsh debate for some time, perhaps I may be forgiven for paying tribute to my former colleague at the Welsh Office, the Minister, Ian Grist, who, sadly, died a few weeks ago. I believe that Ian was liked by all parties. He was devoted to his constituents and to Wales and put in an enormous effort for them. It is a tragedy that at such a young age he was taken by a nasty illness and recently died. I pay tribute to him.
1150
I thought that 2001 was a sad and bad year for Wales to start this century. Matters such as the steel works, foot and mouth, which has been mentioned, and decreases in inward investment combined to make it a difficult year. It would be easy for Wales to go into depression. I believe that there are still enormous opportunities for Wales, which could enjoy a great expansion in the coming years. My noble friend Lord Griffiths said how supportive he was of devolution. Had I been a Welsh elector I would have joined the 49 per cent voting against it. However, once passed, it is the duty of all people in Wales to support it and hope that it succeeds. Once it is in place, I believe all of us hope that the Assembly has many successes.
The great advantage for Wales is what it can offer in terms of inward investment and other factors contributing to quality of life. The quality of life has improved enormously. Wales now has a fabulous capital city in Cardiff. The improvement in that city—always elegant and possessing much quality—is remarkable. A great deal is due to the actions of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell as Secretary of State. At a time of economic depression and great difficulty he had the vision to see the opportunities for developing right the way through to the sea. His decision to set up the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and to go ahead with the barrage proved enormously successful. I tried to continue with that activity. My one opponent was the First Minister in Wales. I hope that if ever the Assembly buildings are completed, they will have outside them a large mud flat to remind him of what he wished to retain.
Cardiff is now one of the best cities in Europe. It has a fabulous stadium. In the future, I hope there will be a great arts centre. To have a capital city with all the facilities and quality of buildings that Cardiff enjoys is an enormous advantage to any country. There are also surrounding areas of great beauty. I believe that a combination of all that means that Wales can say to the world's business and commerce, "This is a remarkable place to come to". I hope they do.
The inward investment position is still serious. As someone who still reads the Welsh press and the press handouts of the Wales Office and the Assembly, I believe there is a slight complacency. One gets the impression that it is all going exceedingly well. However, I obtained from the Wales Office the current figures. For the year 2000–01, there were 75 new projects at a total capital investment of £491 million. Ten years previously there were 208 new projects and a capital investment of £1,115 million. That is a drop in both projects and capital investment of about 60 per cent, and a fairly steady drop.
The Welsh economy needs inward investment. It is easy for some people to say, as they did when I was there, that they are not high-quality jobs. However, they are much better than no jobs, and bring with them all the needs for servicing and other activities in the Welsh economy. That is an important theme. I hope that the Welsh Assembly will give great attention to what needs to be done to boost the figures of inward investment during this current period. People say that when there is a recession, that is much more difficult.

1151
Funnily enough, during periods of recession, many firms throughout the world look for a better place to produce their goods at lower cost and more effectively. Wales can offer that; not by paying low wages but through the availability of low-cost premises and a university system which is willing to collaborate.
I express my hope, too, that the Welsh universities will be carefully protected during this period. I hear suggestions, including from within the Assembly, for changes in Welsh universities. I believe that the Welsh university system has enormous quality and potential. In my lifetime, Cardiff University has enhanced its reputation nation-wide and worldwide. I believe that the other parts of the federal University of Wales also have enormous potential of great importance to the economic development of Wales. I hope that great care will be taken.
The other area of great depression, about which I disagree with my noble friend Lord Griffiths, is in the handling of foot and mouth. I do not believe that: that was handled well. I do not make this as a party political point. I believe that it was handled badly both in England and Wales. Speaking to leaders of the farming unions in Wales and elsewhere, there is general agreement on that. I am sorry that there is no agreement on an independent inquiry as to what happened. I believe there should be. As a former Minister of Agriculture, I obtained great benefit from the inquiry and report of 1967 when, after a very bad foot and mouth outbreak, a Labour government investigated in great depth what had happened and what should happen in the future. The one sadness of the recent foot and mouth outbreak is that that report, both in Wales and in England, was totally ignored. Measures were not taken that could have dramatically reduced the effect.
The effect on agriculture and tourism in Wales has been massive. It is very difficult to see how those sectors will revive. Confidence has been lost. The hill farmers of Wales have always had a lean time. I has never been—nor will be —-a prosperous industry. Producing sheep on the hills is a tough task which is not very remunerative. Many of those farmers are now bankrupt. They are deeply in debt and do not know how to start again.
There should be a clear plan for Welsh agriculture over the coming period. One rather wild suggestion could be examined. The Prime Minister, on his tour in Africa, made speeches about the importance of more aid and more food aid specifically. He said that the trouble was that when one gives food aid it reaches the wrong hands and is used by corrupt dealers and does not reach the people who are starving.
There is a great opportunity here for Wales. Irrespective of one's religion, the form of meat that all the world eats is sheepmeat. Wales could easily organise a programme of food aid world-wide using its sheep production resources. A five-year contract could be placed to do that. Of course, Europe would object. But when Europe objected, one could say, "You can join in the scheme", and, "Why don't you?" Europe
1152
has never organised aid programmes well. Here is a specific area for a food aid programme which could provide a firm contract.
There is a great deal of talk about "other alternatives". I read with great interest the report on agriculture produced by the Government last week. I thought that it was the most devastatingly bad report. The main enthusiastic argument was, "Let's get rid of the CAP subsidies so that farmers face reality". That is absurd. The hill farmers of Wales have faced reality in a very big way over this last period. They need to be able to sell their production and sell it well. Of course we can encourage organic farming and areas such as that. But so far as concerns the hills of Wales, sheep will remain a necessity. Programmes should be discovered to make sure that sheep farming is revived and has a tolerable time in the future. It is vital for the Welsh countryside that that takes place.
Several noble Lords have spoken about the importance of education. I very much agree with that. We must see that educational services are allied closely to businesses in Wales. Business needs a better educated and skilled force. The Welsh educational service can provide that. I wish it every success in doing so.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walker. In the relatively carefree days—from my point of view—when I was merely a party leader in the Commons, he was a Secretary of State. We were paired. That did not do either of our careers any harm and we were able to spend more time in Wales than otherwise we would have.
I thank the noble Lord for commemorating the late Ian Grist. He was a Minister who devoted much of his time to developing the health service in Wales. It is appropriate that we should commemorate him in this House.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for introducing the debate. In order to maintain the reputation of fair-mindedness which he kindly endowed upon me, I shall not get involved in the University of Wales, the Welsh language or the economy. I shall confine myself to the constitutional issues. I declare an interest as both presiding officer of the National Assembly and as the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy who is about to face reselection.
Given the views of some people in my party about this House, this might not be the most appropriate platform from which to launch my reselection, but I shall do so none the less. Tonight I should have been in the Millennium Stadium supporting the Welsh football team against Argentina. I wish them well But my devotion to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, arid to this House is such that I felt that it was more important to be here.
Tomorrow in the National Assembly we shall be debating the report of the Assembly's review of procedures. It is the first opportunity that we have had

1153
to look at the way that we function. I should like to highlight some of the points that hopefully we shall be debating tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has already made the point about the complex geometry of devolution: the relationship between the powers that are devolved to Cardiff and the powers that are with Parliament at Westminster. A point that has not been sufficiently understood is that Parliament is still defining devolution as it moves. In other words, by repealing legislation at Westminster under which executive functions have been conferred on the Assembly by previous legislation and by passing new primary legislation which gives functions to Whitehall Ministers, Parliament is reducing as well as increasing the Assembly's powers. Therefore, we need to look again at that relationship.
We were presented in our report on the review of procedures with a series of principles by Professor Richard Rawlings of the LSE. It is appropriate that I should highlight some of those principles. They are principles that apply to how government at Westminster can assist the process of devolution without in any sense establishing primary powers by default, about which some people have argued.
It is important, first of all, that the Assembly should acquire new powers in Bills which come from Westminster which relate to its existing responsibilities. That is a basic devolutionary principle. In other words, there should not be a retreat from the existing areas of responsibility.
Similarly, the tendency to give powers to a UK Minister covering Wales should be pursued only if there is a case for a single England and Wales or GB or UK basis of policy making. In other words, it should not be up to the parliamentary draftsmen who work for different departments to decide on the geometry of devolution.
We have four previous Secretaries of State, a previous Minister of State and a previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Chamber. That is a good contingent from the "colonial" days, if I may put it that way. As much as I affectionately remember the Office of the Secretary of State when it was the main executive arm of government in Wales, it is not now appropriate in the post-devolutionary context to exercise functions through the Secretary of State and the Wales Office, as it is now called. Those functions are more appropriately conferred on the Assembly.
Likewise, where there are concurrent functions—such as those in the existing settlement—new parliamentary Bills should not reduce the Assembly's functions by giving functions to a UK Minister. Nor should there be a requirement to act jointly with the UK Government in dealing with matters which were previously the subject of subordinate legislation within the Assembly. That has happened in a number of policy fields recently.
1154
It is more controversial to argue for a broadening of the drafting of clauses at Westminster to provide for enabling subordinate legislation or for so-called Henry VIII powers. But I hope that when the Constitution Committee of this House under the noble Lord, Lord Norton, comes to deliberate on this matter—and certainly in the Assembly we warmly welcome the fact that a committee of this House is to look at the process of devolution—it will look again at a form of frame of legislation that enables the Assembly to exercise its powers of subordinate legislation more effectively.
Those are some of the issues which I believe need to be addressed by the UK Government. There are other issues which the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has kindly referred to which relate to the development of the Assembly as a constitutional body. I am anticipating what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, may say. The noble Lord shakes his head. He is not going to say it tonight. I am grateful to him. In the previous debate on this subject he took a bit of a swipe at me—but that is par for the course, as it appears to me that speakers these days are not getting a very good press—in relation to the development of the constitutional structure of the Assembly. That has moved on. We now have a parliamentary body. We have—and I pay tribute to him—a Parliamentary Clerk in Mr Paul Silk. He was well trained in the Palace of Westminster, particularly in the Foreign Affairs Committee, before he joined us in the National Assembly.
The establishment of a government system—although I may not entirely approve of the name that it gives itself—and a parliamentary structure within the National Assembly is clear progress. The prospect of 2003, when there will be fixed-term assembly elections, is fascinating. As your Lordships well remember from the great days of the passage of the Government of Wales Act 1998, the National Assembly for Wales cannot dissolve itself. Whatever the political structure of the National Assembly in 2003, a government must be formed. I was intrigued by the suggestion that there should be a ministry of all the talents—I think that that was the extended proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for the Assembly's future.
Finally, we have moved a long way from a certain divisive politics in Wales—this debate has been a sign of this—in which one or other party claimed a kind of monopoly on the Welsh political culture. The growth of the Welsh Conservative Party, the Welsh Liberal Democrats, Welsh Labour and of the Party of Wales, Plaid Cymru, indicates in each of their ways a greater maturity in Welsh politics. It is in that spirit that I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, and look forward to his further contribution to the growth of an even more autonomous Welsh Conservative Party.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, on securing this debate and introducing it so well. May I join the tributes to Ian Grist? When we

1155
were colleagues in the House of Commons, I always regarded him as the epitome of the meaning of the term "an honourable friend".
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has this evening been uncharacteristically over-sensitive. I criticised him on a previous occasion, but I do not intend to do so tonight. I entertained serious doubts about the functionality of the devolution settlement and institutions. but, apart from the natural maturing of the institutions, there has been one significant development: the formation of a government. Without seeking in any way to make a party-political point, the formation of the coalition government has demonstrated that Wales, like any other country, needed a government and that the political process works much better if a majority government is in being with a clear political programme—whether or not one agrees with the whole of that programme.
What pains me about devolution and the position of the Assembly is that while the process has matured so well—especially during the past year—the consciousness of that maturity is still weak among many members of the population. The Assembly itself must tackle that problem between now and the second Assembly election.
What also worries me is the asymmetrical nature of devolution. By that, I mean that the Assembly clearly has ownership of some issues for Wales. Yesterday, one came to the fore with the decision to introduce a measure of student grants for students from Wales—as I understand it, those studying both in and out of Wales. That is a welcome development and the signs today are that the Government have shown a real interest in developing what has happened in Wales to cover the whole country.
On the other hand, ownership of Welsh issues has not been shown in the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry approving the development of a massive wind farm power station in Cardiganshire. That power station—upon which, I understand, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has secured a debate during the next two weeks—involves placing 300 foot high wind turbine masts on an attractive and extremely prominent Welsh hill. The proposal was approved by the local council on a split vote. The Assembly was asked to give its views, and gave them in a clear and objective manner on a number of issues. Those views can now be read in the Library, as the result of a helpful Answer to a Question that I tabled.
That decision was not made at a public inquiry in Wales; there was none. It was made not by a Minister in the Assembly; nor by the Secretary of State for Wales. It was not even made by a Minister with responsibility for the environment. The decision was made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I confess to being one of those who opposed the proposed power station. It will be a terrible scar on the landscape of Wales and a wholly unacceptable precedent for Wales to be used as the dumping ground for supposedly environmentally friendly power schemes—about which I have some doubts that were
1156
clearly expressed during a previous inquiry of the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place, of which I was a member.
As a matter of principle, if we are to have a government, for Wales and in Wales, with ownership of issues relating to Wales, such a crucial environmental issue should be decided by the Assembly. I regret that the Government have not even allowed a public inquiry in Wales at which we could all have made our views known.
I should also like to address another extremely important matter: child and adolescent mental health services. I declare an interest as the founder and trustee of a new charity in mid-Wales called Rekindle, which is dedicated to helping young people who are recovering from mental illness. In passing, I also declare an interest as the parent of a child who has recovered from extremely serious mental illness. No affliction affects any family—and I mean the whole family—more than the mental illness of a teenage boy or girl.
A committee was set up to review child and adolescent mental health strategy in Wales. It was chaired by a skilled psychiatrist, Dr Jennifer Lloyd, who has experience in clinical practice and in the public health sector. The advisory group on child and adolescent mental health services produced its report more than a year ago. It is entitled, Everybody's Business, and has the virtue of being short and clear and of setting out a strategy.
I realise—and I expect to be told by the Minister when she winds up the debate—that matters of priority in health spending are for the government in Cardiff and the Assembly. However, this is still the superior Parliament—in constitutional terms—and if the Assembly or government in Cardiff seem not to be giving resources to a crucial national interest, we have every right to raise the matter in this Parliament.
The report to which I referred found, for example, a lack of co-operation between those responsible for child mental health that leads to children being passed from pillar to post between agencies or neglected. Yesterday, I was told by the chief executive of an NHS trust of a case with which he recently had to deal. A 10 year-old boy was admitted who was extremely disturbed, quite violent and desperately needed serious psychiatric help. There was nowhere to send him. He ended up spending 17 days in an entirely inappropriate paediatric ward where staff did what they could for him. Eventually, after 17 days, a place was found for him in an appropriate hospital—in England, I believe.
It is extremely important when families and children are afflicted in that way that we should have proper mental health services in and for Wales. Of course, it is of great value to have people such as Dr Jennifer Lloyd producing a recipe to solve such problems. That has been done and accepted in principle. But it is absolutely unacceptable for the money not to be provided to put those solutions into practice.
I therefore hope that the Government, as part of their overall health strategy, will take the initiative to try to ensure that the social conditions of people in

1157
Wales include providing proper facilities for the treatment of mental illness among children and adolescents. They are so easy to forget and regard as a problem that does not really exist or may go away. To anyone who feels that way, I say, "Just wait until it happens to you, and you will begin to appreciate the reality and urgency of the problem".
The coalition government in Cardiff are now doing a very good job. They face all the usual brickbats of politics. Wales has always been very good at adversarial politics and I do not believe that the adversarial principle will ever leave politics in Wales. It is in the blood and it is on the tip of the tongue. However, bearing those factors in mind, the Assembly is doing well. I just hope that when it comes to the next Assembly election, the public in Wales will realise that they are now governed from Cardiff and will decide to participate in the political process that selects the form and nature of their government.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for his thoughtful and important opening address. Noble Lords have spoken eloquently and properly about some of the pressing social, economic and health problems of Wales; about regional divisions; about employment, unemployment and the creation of new wealth; and about the possible need to amend the Government of Wales Act 1998.
But the Assembly is still in its infancy. Of course it is not without its weaknesses, nor is the Government of Wales Act 1998, which brought the Assembly into being, without its flaws as well. Some of those flaws, or deficiencies, are discussed by David Lambert, the legal adviser to the presiding officer, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his chapter, "A voice for Wales", published in the volume, Legal Wales: Its past, Its future. I believe that some of Lambert's thoughts have been rehearsed this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. He, too, delivered an important speech. I have little doubt that this issue ought to be examined by the constitution committee.
However, as of now, the Government of Wales Act 1998 is the only foundation upon which the National Assembly has to build. I believe, with other noble Lords, that we can now say with considerable confidence that progress is being made. I, too, have read the address of 24th January by Winston Roddick, a Counsel General of the Assembly. He drew attention to the much-increased legislative activity of the National Assembly during the second year of its existence. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris referred to the fact that during its second year the Assembly passed 81 orders with a distinctly Welsh context in addition to the 149 orders mirroring those made by Westminster departments.
If we look in detail at those 81 orders passed by the Assembly with a distinctive Welsh context, we find that they affect a whole range of devolved subjects. Within the 81 orders there are nine for transport,
1158
planning and environment, 15 for education, six for health and food safety, 14 for social care, 10 for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, 26 for economic development, industry, local government and housing, and one for the Welsh language. I greatly welcome that increase in subordinate legislation with a Welsh context, because it signals that the National Assembly is settling down and designing subordinate legislation within the framework of England and Wales primary legislation to meet Welsh circumstances and, in time, to improve the living standards of the people of Wales. The legislation and the significant decisions of the Welsh Assembly are all subject to judicial review. But to the best of my knowledge there has been no great increase in judicial review proceedings in Wales.
After the contribution of so many speakers with their wide experience of Welsh affairs, I come to the only specific issue which I want to mention; that is, the deep anxieties of many Welsh people in relation to the future of the Welsh-speaking communities. I should like to reinforce—if that is the right word—what was said on this issue by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon. The Welsh-speaking rural communities are now facing a crisis which threatens the existence of the Welsh language as a community language and ultimately, I believe, as a living language.
The crisis is tied up with a number of complex problems and four in particular: the visible and depressing state of agriculture; lack of employment; outward migration of young Welsh speakers and the inward migration of non-Welsh speakers on a scale which threatens to change the whole character of communities in a quickening process.
Moreover, I feel that there may also be a further factor at work. Perhaps there is by now a festering resentment at the failure of successive governments to tackle the crisis. I accept, as I am bound to do, that on the world stage many languages are today facing a crisis of existence. And we may be able to draw on the experience of some other bi-lingual countries.
But in Wales this crisis has not come upon us with dramatic suddenness. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that 12 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Trefgarne, will recall that we debated this very issue in your Lordships' House. I have no evidence that that debate had any effect at all. But I persevere.
I could almost make the same speech tonight as I made then, except that there are two significant differences. First, the crisis has deteriorated over the past 12 years. Secondly, I am addressing my remarks tonight primarily to the National Assembly for Wales, which is the custodian of our linguistic heritage. Of course there is clearly an urgent need for jobs and homes in the townships in north, west and mid-Wales, townships such as Caernarvon, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Machynlleth and Tregaron, so that they can once again see and believe that they have a future and can sustain their communities. No doubt we will be told that all that will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve because of this or that factor

1159
which cannot be altered. Others may even claim that the processes at work in the Welsh-speaking rural communities are irreversible. But in my view doing nothing is riot an option. If there is a determination and a will to succeed I believe that a great deal can yet be achieved. Perhaps I may quote the words of the Counsel General,
"The Assembly is in being to bring about change and it can do so in a number of ways".
I very much hope that the Welsh Assembly will think again about the crisis in the Welsh-speaking areas and think again about the future of higher education in Wales.
7 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I join those who have paid tribute to my former Parliamentary Private Secretary, Ian Grist. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of also paying tribute to an old friend, a great and very brave Welshman, Lord Gibson-Watt, whose death has just been announced. He will be greatly missed. I also thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach for introducing this debate.
I begin my remarks by expressing my concern about one particular feature of the present state of devolved government in Wales. Apathy among the electorate there is even greater than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The work of the Assembly has created little interest except among the politically active minority. Media coverage is limited in its impact.
As the just-retired chairman of HTV, I want to draw the attention of noble Lords to the importance of, and my concerns about, the coming communications Bill. If regional broadcasting, so important for devolved democracy, is to survive, it is vital that the Government get right the legislation that affects it and that crucial decisions about such matters as media ownership, the switch over to digital and the introduction of broadband are not too long delayed.
I, and others involved, are very uneasy about the process being followed by the Government. There are worrying indications that Ministers cannot make up their minds about ownership issues on which the survival of effective regional broadcasting may depend. Those who believe that democracy and devolution depend on effective communication should not relax their efforts to see that the Government get it right, and speedily.
What has emerged from the Assembly, perhaps not surprisingly, has been pretty dull stuff so far involving a great deal of talking, but not much doing. Participation and consultation are important, but without follow-up action it becomes an expensive luxury. It is true that there are some good stories to tell which promise well for the future. Despite some of the failures which my noble friend Lord Walker has addressed about the management of foot-and-mouth, there was a good and positive reaction, more generous than in England, in the provision of help to rural communities. The 11 per cent increase in arts funding is welcome and there have been some positive messages in the 10-year plan for culture.
1160
I believe that Jane Hutt, the Minister for Health. has all the right intentions, but the record on health has been less successful. There have been rising waiting lists and there is a shortage of consultants. I am not entirely sure that the proposals for reform are heading in exactly the right direction.
But to return to my theme about making an impact, it is not always easy to discover exactly what the Assembly is doing. I sought information from the Assembly website. It was rather like drawing blood out of a stone. The January media briefing did lead me to two significant debates held on 22nd January. I shall take education first.
The first item that attracted my attention was headed "Creating a World Class Education Centre in Wales". That sounded promising. It turned out to be about a speech made by Jane Davidson, the Minister, in Cuba where she had signed what was described as high level Memorandum of Understanding with the Cuban Minister for Education. In the course of her speech, while she was signing it, she delivered what I can only describe as a eulogy about the Cuban education system.
It appears that some alarmingly centralist Cuban tendencies have already begun to take hold among Assembly Members, or so it appeared from remarks made in the debate on 22nd January about the review of higher education in Wales carried out by the Assembly Committee on Lifelong Learning. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, wished that he had opportunities to say a little more about the subject.
I of course welcome the good news that was announced of an extra £6 million for the higher education sector to build on the successes achieved in the 2001 research assessment exercise. But although the Minister acknowledged that those successes owed nothing to the Assembly, both she and other Members seemed to indicate an intent to take a very high level of direct control over the university sector in Wales in a manner which I find alarming.
The committee wants to generate collaboration and networking between institutions and to create regional clusters both for research and teaching. It believes that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales should promote and lead the way and that the Minister and the funding bodies should enter into a dialogue with the University of Wales,
"to review the appropriateness of the present University of Wales structure".
There were suggestions in the debate that the Minister should require every higher education institution in Wales fully to reflect the Assembly's vision and principles. Others made it clear that they saw it as an appropriate role for the Assembly not just to review, but actually to decide, the structure of the University of Wales. I cannot object to dialogues, but I would be concerned if the Assembly were to seek to dictate the structure of the University of Wales and the relationships between the component parts of the university and the other Welsh higher education institutions. Some Members seem to believe that the quality of research in particular places can be achieved by the imposition of political authority.

1161
Of course the funding council, with its control of the purse strings, can influence events. Of course, political leaders can encourage co-operation. But to believe that a Minister should dictate the policies of the university, let alone usefully influence research standards, is surely to misunderstand the nature of great and successful universities. Does the Assembly have the powers to do what it apparently wants to do? The universities and their colleges have charters: the Privy Council has an important role. But more important than the powers are the principles involved such as academic freedom and academic choice. Academic talent and academic achievement are not the plaything of politicians: they need to be defended and nurtured. I hope that the Assembly will he wise enough to encourage, but will draw back from following too closely the Cuban example.
Also on 22nd January there was a debate on the Wales Millennium Centre. I am delighted that the Assembly voted up to £37 million towards the total cost of the project of £104 million. I am delighted that contracts are expected to be signed within days. I am delighted that so many Assembly Members spoke with enthusiasm for the project. I only wish that they had spoken with equal enthusiasm in 1995 for the opera house project that would have provided almost identical facilities. I also cannot resist reminding the House that we now have a project that is more expensive than the one that was rejected, even taking account of inflation. We have had a hole in the ground for seven years.
Finally, I shall say a word about another strategy document A Winning Wales—the National Assembly's Economic Development Strategy. There is much that is good in it, but as the First Minister observes in the Preface:
"The test will be how well it is implemented".
It is not true, as the document suggests, that Wales needs to start the task of economic transformation. That ignores the huge steps taken over the past 30 years under the leadership of several noble Lords in this House today on both sides of the Chamber. However, there are some welcome statements about the crucial role of the private sector, about new technologies and about promoting innovation. The trouble is that, once again, it is just another plan, and a 10-year plan at that.
I finish as I began, by acknowledging that the Assembly has done some useful things and, to its credit, has not made any disastrous mistakes. However, if it is to fulfil its own high hopes—or even the much more modest hopes of the people of Wales—discussion and consultation must be turned into effective action and communication with the electorate much improved, or everything that the Assembly does will be lost, either in a mire of voter apathy or in a rising and dangerous tide of discontent.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, as we move towards the end of the debate, I take great pleasure in following the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who gives the Assembly in Wales such wonderful support. I share the general view of noble Lords and welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, in introducing the debate.
As someone who left south Wales 17 years ago, I thought for a while about participating. However, absence makes the heart grow fonder, as the saying goes. As someone who supported devolution as leader of the community union, the 1STC, the major union in the steel industry, I thought that I should join noble Lords in this important debate. I can assure noble Lords that I took no notice of a colleague of mine—another noble Lord—who said that I should speak because I would probably be the only one debating who had had a real job. Of course, I visit Wales often. As a keen supporter of Welsh rugby, I, like other noble Lords, feel the pain when our national team goes wrong.
From my perspective, as former leader of a trade union, devolution, following a somewhat shaky start. has brought benefits to people in Wales. It is not—nor was it meant to be—a path to independence, but one that gives a voice to previously silent communities. The opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, were music to my ears. In giving effective voice to a more participative form of democracy, the National Assembly is already providing improvements.
Noble Lords will be aware that the steel industry in Wales, which has been mentioned several times, has once again suffered horrendously over the past 12 months. More than half of the 6,000 job losses announced by Corus are in Wales. There are also many hundreds of redundancies among sub-contractors whose services will no longer be required. In that terrible situation, the Welsh Assembly and, in particular, Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister, strongly supported by the Secretary of State for Wales, put together an aid package of £66 million—£50 million from the Assembly and £16 million from the Government—to support those facing redundancy and the communities hit by the closures. That has been increased by a further £26 million from the Assembly Government. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that should be applauded.
All that, together with a raft of wonderful announcements made by the First Minister on 31st January, will go some way to assist in the regeneration of the communities affected. As Rhodri Morgan said in his Cabinet statement of 31st January,
"There are no quick fixes to problems as entrenched as those of our long-neglected industrial communities, but I believe that this programme represents a new start and the strongest possible faith in the future of these communities".
Tribute should be paid to the Assembly and to the Wales TUC, the WDA and my union. They all came together to meet the Assembly Ministers and secured

1163
extremely large amounts of money for re-skilling redundant steelworkers, through the Wales union learning fund.
Solutions have emerged from the communities themselves, rather than being a one-size-fits-all Westminster policy. That is important, not in a parochial sense, but in the sense that empowering communities will mean that opportunities will be taken with a greater sense of ownership. In my home town, Ebbw Vale, the community has been calling for the re-opening of passenger rail transport. That has been agreed, with Assembly funding. It is good news for the people of Ebbw Vale.
The Assembly, being so relatively young, has much going for it. Being participative, transparent and accessible in the way in which it operates will bring it success and further endorsement from the people of Wales.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am delighted to take part in the debate and add my thanks to my noble friend Lord. Griffiths of Fforestfach for making it possible. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to direct my remarks to the engineering industry in Wales and its role in the Welsh economy. However, I must begin by declaring my interest as chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, the national training organisation for engineering manufacture. I shall make another declaration: I was born in the Principality. It is for your Lordships to judge whether that fact adds any credibility to what I have to say.
I am proud of the fact that, although EMTA is a national organisation in a UK sense, we have employed a dedicated team in Wales for several years. We recognise that there are occasions when a different approach is necessary to suit the economy in a particular area. However, in the wider UK economy it is crucial for there to be an element of cohesion, particularly in training and skills. In many respects, devolution has created a more complex situation. Wales has pioneered training policy for the rest of the United Kingdom, under both Conservative and Labour administrations. Now, through the National Assembly, Wales has been leading the way in training, especially in engineering.
I shall give just two examples. The introduction of the modern apprenticeships enjoyed more prominence in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom and has proved. so far, to be at least as successful in the Principality. More recently, it was the approach taken in Wales towards equitable funding for training, across all sectors, that many, including EMTA, argued should be adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom. The abolition of training and enterprise councils and their replacement by learning and skills councils, which has brought a more equitable funding regime, is the result.
I am pleased that the vocational GCSE in engineering, about which your Lordships may have heard recently, will be introduced in Wales, as in
1164
England, in September this year. However, I have some concerns about the mixed messages that seem to come from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about the value of vocational qualifications. On the one hand, she has said that the qualifications should be aimed at all young people, but then we had the headlines suggesting that bright pupils would be allowed to skip some part of the examination.
The position of the engineering industry on the matter is clear. We are keen to see the introduction of vocational GCSEs as another opportunity for young people to have hands-on experience of the industry. However, we must also be sure that all young people are offered the opportunity to take such qualifications and that they should not be seen as a second-class option for non-academic pupils. Recent experience with the part one GNVQ in engineering has shown that 14 to 19 year-olds from across the ability range can be attracted to the subject and, on completion of the course, may wish to continue working towards an engineering career via a work-based route. We hope that the new qualification will not only increase the flow of young people into engineering but will help to raise the profile of the modern apprenticeships to which I referred.
Of course, the engineering industry makes a significant contribution to the Welsh economy and will continue to do so. At 28 per cent of GDP, its contribution is already significantly higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Manufacturing employs about 198,000 people in Wales—about 23 per cent of the workforce, which compares with only 19 per cent in England and 18 per cent in Scotland.
An interesting fact that I recently came across is that over 500,000 kilometres of optic fibre is installed in Wales and Cardiff Bay has more fibre optic cable than San Francisco Bay. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell can take due credit for that.
The fundamental issue facing Wales is the prosperity gap. The target for increasing GDP, set out recently in a strategic document, is to reach 90 per cent of the UK average by 2010. To achieve that, a growth rate of 4 per cent would be required, compared with the forecast 2.7 per cent for the United Kingdom over the same period and against growth in Wales of under 1 per cent per annum over the last decade. The challenge is significant and it is not enough simply to choose policies and strategies that only establish an environment that will encourage growth. It will also be important to make some difficult choices and focus on selected wealth-creating sectors—sectors that surely would include engineering and manufacture.
It is therefore crucial that both the education and training policies of the National Assembly are aimed at supporting manufacturing. From research that my organisation has gathered, we are able to establish that strong links exist between investment in training and development with higher added value per employee.
In an earlier remark I made reference to the complex position that devolution sometimes creates in policy development. While the Government's plans for the establishment of sector skills councils are to be

1165
welcomed, various delays are causing funding to be withheld and this in turn is causing some important problems for training within the engineering sector. I hope that these changes can now be swiftly finalised.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, Wales has not always been the weakest link in the United Kingdom. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, parts of Wales were boom areas which lived on coal in the same way as we have seen, in more recent decades, that Aberdeen has lived on oil. Certain areas in Wales attracted inward investment in coal, steel and heavy engineering.
When I first became involved in Welsh politics in the 1960s, in my area we still had collieries, steelworks, breweries and leatherworks. It was a reasonably thriving economy. Yet, in 1964 when I stood in my first election in Rhyl, I was calling for a Welsh parliament, for proportional representation and for the abolition of the House of Lords. We have made substantial strides in those directions. As my noble friend Lord Hooson remarked in the course of his speech, in 1967 I drafted a Parliament of Wales Bill, the main feature of which I can now recall was the resurrection of the grand court of Wales with a separate judicial system. In such a system, were it to be adopted, there seemed to be room for both my noble friend Lord Carlile and myself.
In the 1970s, I recall the late Professor Edward Nevin setting out his thesis that, in a period of transition, it would be quite wrong simply to pay compensation to overseas firms to come to Wales. It would not be right simply to pay them money. His thesis posited that the best way of spending public money was to invest in education, a point emphasised in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne; to pioneer new ways of bringing skills to Wales; and to invest in communications through creating road and rail links—we used to discuss north-south rail links in Wales, but perhaps these days it is more crucial to establish ready movement towards markets in the European Union. He discussed the development of information technology. Professor Nevin also spoke of investing in the quality of life and, indeed, certain strides have been made in that direction.
There has been a severe transition in the economy of Wales over the period that I have been involved in Welsh affairs, ameliorated by the work of the Welsh Development Agency and by the work of successive Secretaries of State, whose contribution has been enormous and is very much recognised. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, the work involved in getting over the transition has not just started now that we have a Welsh Assembly; it is a continuation of what has taken place in the past.
What that means is that we must not underestimate the inheritance of the Welsh Assembly and the problems that the assembly has had to face. As has already been pointed out, prosperity is some 20 per cent below that of the United Kingdom average. That
1166
is not the case in Scotland, which has pulled itself up to reach United Kingdom averages. Inward investment, on which we have depended so heavily during the latter part of the 20th century, has weakened, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, himself. It is likely to continue to weaken, in particular if eastern European countries attach themselves to the European Union. Other areas of the European market will then become available offering even cheaper labour than has been the case in Wales.
Thus there are great problems which the assembly has inherited, as well as great problems for the future which it has to face. I believe that if we did not have the Welsh Assembly to face those problems, then the task of the future for Wales would be very bleak indeed. We now have people with hands-on experience of the day-to-day challenges and economic problems and I trust them to carry out their responsibilities.
As was said, in my view in the social field the assembly has tackled the task extremely well. The public perception is, unhappily, that the Welsh Assembly has not been a great success during its first stuttering years, but the media have reported the assembly in terms of personalities. That is not surprising because the personalities have certainly been vivid during the early years of the assembly. There have been problems. However, what the media and, as a consequence, the people of Wales have failed to realise is that in the field of policy formation, Wales really does lead the way. Those of us who are concerned with Welsh affairs in this House know that when a Bill is produced here, or when provisions relating to Wales come up in a United Kingdom Bill arriving with the blessing of the Welsh Assembly, then those provisions have been well thought out. There will have been full consultation.
In that regard I refer in particular to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill which we debated last year, where wide consultation had taken place and where debates had been held both in committee and on the Floor of the assembly. What then came to this House was the consensus view of all parties. Of course when it was put into the hands of the Westminster Parliament and the Westminster Government, noble Lords will recall that attempts were made immediately to weaken the agreed position, in particular in relation to Home Office affairs. Those were to be excluded. Were it not for the pressures applied in this House, then the agreed solution of the Welsh Assembly would not have been carried out.
Similarly, none of us who attended the meeting held last week with Jane Hutt could have failed to be impressed with the degree of effort that has gone into forming the provisions for the health Bill which is shortly to be debated before noble Lords. Again, widespread consultation has taken place on the structure of the provision of the National Health Service in Wales and an agreed solution has been brought forward.
Agreeing on policy is one thing, but translating it through legislation is another. I was pleased to note, when I visited the Library of Congress in Washington

1167
three weeks ago, to challenge the law librarian to produce a copy of the laws of Hywel Dda. He produced three copies and a portrait of the gentleman in question, which I found extremely impressive.
However. that is primary legislation. What the legislators in the Welsh Assembly have to do is to translate policy through half of the instruments that are available in Westminster. They can deal only with secondary legislation. They are now learning the skills, but no one, not even the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would suggest that, as yet, there is a complete mastery of the way in which policy, through secondary legislation, can be turned to good effect.
I have always supported those who have called for an extension of powers for the Welsh Assembly to include the creation of primary legislation in certain fields. It is a learning process. Once the secondary legislation skills and techniques have been mastered—subject by subject and item by item—so primary legislative powers can be given to the Welsh Assembly.
It was drawn to my attention at the weekend, for example, that animal health is an area which ought to be devolved in its entirety. A lot of the problems caused by foot and mouth were notably absent in Scotland because there was not a long chain of command. They had full control over foot and mouth in Scotland and it was stamped on with efficiency and very quickly. In Wales we were not so successful because different departments were involved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—to whom we are all grateful for raising the topic of devolution at this time—said, it is not acceptable that the Assembly should put forward four Bills for the Queen's Speech and every one of them rejected. It is not acceptable that there should be attempts in Westminster to alter the consensus view of the Welsh Assembly on primary legislation. We should at least have a constitutional convention that if the Welsh Assembly is agreed upon a solution and needs primary legislation, then, until it gets the powers to do so for itself, Westminster should put it into effect unless there is a very good and express reason for doing something else.
We are at the beginning of the process of devolution. I have been talking about it for getting on for 40 years; I hope that in the next 40 years we shall see it come to its full fruition.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I, too, deeply regret the passing of Lord Gibson-Watt and the comparatively early death of Ian Grist. Each was a close friend and colleague and both were very capable Ministers at the Welsh Office at different times. Lord Gibson-Watt was, of course, an exceptionally brave soldier who won the MC and two Bars.
I compliment my noble friend on securing this timely and valuable debate. I hope that every Member of the National Assembly will read it. The approach of our saint's clay and the third anniversary of the National Assembly is an appropriate moment to inquire into the state of our nation. The speeches we
1168
have heard today present a unique picture gallery of Wales at this time. There have also been a number of inspiring new ideas.
Devolution has certainly had its impact on the economic and social life of the Principality, but so, too, have developments in the world outside—in the rest of Britain, Europe and elsewhere. It is not easy to separate the effects of external pressures and influences from those of indigenous initiatives. Wales is no island in the current dot.com doldrums.
I begin by commending the considerable work which has clearly gone on in the Assembly in preparing a variety of strategy documents for the devolved areas within its sphere of responsibility. Their titles—A Winning Wales for the economic: strategy, The Learning Country for educational aspirations, and Putting Patients First for future health plans—give a flavour of the high hopes, idealism and ambitions within those documents and others which flowed from them.
Some of these documents have been heavily criticised within the Assembly itself—and rightly so—but there is no doubt that a great deal of thinking and serious discussion have gone on, and I commend the Assembly on its efforts. But, of course, I bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that actions speak louder than words.
Some of the Assembly government's targets are widely optimistic and perhaps they should he reminded that targets are normally set up to be hit rather than missed. Setting targets impossibly high is to court disappointment in future. For example, the ambition to raise Welsh GDP per person from 80 per cent of the UK average to 90 per cent over 10 years falls into that category. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, it would mean that economic growth in Wales must rise faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom by at least one percentage point a year. That is a very tall order and it is far from clear how it is to be achieved from the current economic base, which has been seriously weakened by the loss of valuable jobs in the steel industry and manufacturing, with possibly even more losses to come.
My noble friend Lord Walker referred to the poverty of farmers, especially in the hills. and the further threat to them posed by change in the system of financial support is well known. So is its impact on rural towns and communities, especially in the Welsh-speaking community. Tourism, too, is suffering from the foot-and-mouth outbreak and the threat of recession last year, capped by the events of 11th September.
The buffers of reality in Wales are often grim. In health, the numbers of people on waiting lists have more than doubled to 280,000 since 1997, in spite of increased spending and staffing. Postcode prescribing is rife, and that of course robs the NHS of its claim to be a national service.
It all prompts the question: are the additional resources being properly applied? Will restructuring make things better or worse, as many of us fear?

1169
Educational standards are improving but there are still too many youngsters leaving school with few or no qualifications. Again one wonders whether the proposed changes in the education system—especially the changes in higher education—will make a difference. I hope that Members of the Assembly will heed what I can only describe as the warning that has come from this debate.
The Assembly still has not debated and approved the Welsh provisions of the Education Bill, which has been through all its stages in another place and has had its First Reading in your Lordships' House. That cannot be right and is, in this case, deliberately wrong. The Assembly is being wilfully deprived of its right to discuss the substantial Welsh contents of the Bill by its Labour/Liberal government and I cannot understand what on earth they are afraid of.
I have raised a similar issue before in the context of the Health Bill and I make no apology for raising it again. It is as clear as daylight that the current method of handling primary legislation relating to Wales is very unsatisfactory from all points of view and should be corrected as soon as possible.
That brings me to the question of further powers for the Assembly. It is reported that the Welsh Minister for Agriculture has made a good case for the transfer of additional functions relating to animal welfare from DEFRA to his office. He is supported, I am told, by the farming unions. If so, we should see this proposal. Although such a transfer may not require primary legislation, it should surely be considered in this Parliament.
With due respect to my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, the case for a general transfer of primary legislative powers to the Assembly has not been made out—except in the letter columns of the Western Mail by writers who do not have experience of what is really involved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, generally agreed with that basic point. Neither is the Scottish experience particularly helpful. The Scottish Parliament has not made great use, I am told, of its legislative powers or of its limited taxation powers.
We on the Conservative Benches are pledged to assist the National Assembly to work properly and effectively in the governance of Wales. I believe that the relationship between Parliament and the Assembly is improving, but we need to know more about the Assembly's views and proceedings. We should not have to rely on spasmodic coverage in the media to know what is going on. It is in the interests of the Assembly as well as in our own interest that its proceedings and consultative documents should be readily available in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library. Ignorance and isolation are in no one's interest.
I hope to end by raising the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The ability of the Welsh language to revitalise itself never ceases to amaze me. It has lost one nurturing ground after another—church, chapel, farm—but it keeps on finding new ways to flourish. It
1170
has the versatility of a stern cell and it is indeed a stem cell of Welsh culture and nationhood—as the Old Man of Pencader pointed out to King Henry 1, although not in these precise terms.
It was in your Lordships' House that the Welsh Language Act was introduced nearly 10 years ago. I am proud of the fact that my name is on it. I am sure that your Lordships will echo the words of the Welsh National Anthem:
"0 bydded i'r hen iaith barhau"—
"Let the old language endure".
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have listened with great care and interest to all the contributions to the debate. It is heartening for all of us to know that, whatever the differences between us, Wales still has eloquent spokespeople to argue her case with knowledge and humour.
Perhaps I may begin by endorsing the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to Mr Ian Grist and also the tribute by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, among others to Lord Gibson-Watt. It is sad news that we have received today, and I pay tribute to the work that they did on behalf of the people of the Principality.
On a happier note, I know that noble Lords will be pleased to share with me the superb reason why the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, withdrew his name from the list of speakers. He has become a grandfather again; his grandson was born early today. I am sure that we all accept his judgment and sense of priority in going to visit his new grandchild.
I shall pick up a number of particular points that have been made, but perhaps I may begin by summarising some of the real benefits which I believe have come to Wales with devolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester. said, we must each work to make sure that devolution works—coming though they may have done from slightly different starting positions.
First and foremost, there is the self-confidence of a nation that now takes its proper place within the UK and the EU, proud of its past achievements, confident in its own strength and ready to play its full part. This, as so many speakers have recognised, is evident in the cultural richness and diversity of Wales and the continuing development of the arts.
The history which led to the development of devolution was nowhere more finely displayed than on the occasion of the Merlyn-Rees Lecture, given by my noble friend Lord Morris. I am grateful to him for the context in which he set the background to this debate.
The renaissance in Wales is founded on partnership between the Assembly and the Government on the one hand and the Assembly and the people of Wales on the other. For a country of the size of Wales to succeed and realise its full potential, it is vital that the energies and abilities of all its people are deployed to the full. I pay tribute in this respect to the ministerial team at the Wales Office and to their counterparts in the

1171
Assembly. I join among others the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in paying tribute to those who have managed to create such a fruitful partnership.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, sought to draw me onto the rocks of commenting on the internal procedures adopted by the Assembly. I can see from the noble Lord's smile that he does not expect me to be drawn onto those rocks. It is, as my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon said, extremely important to remember that the Assembly is an entirely new body and for the UK an entirely new type of body. As noble Lords have recognised, it is three years old and is yet to hold its first regular elections. Yet it has been recognised by speaker after speaker that it is now unimaginable to think of Wales without an Assembly.
Careful work has been done to establish proper working relationships with the UK Government. Starting with the Joint Ministerial Committee and the Memorandum of Understanding which underpins it, there has been from the outset a very clear framework for relations between central government and the devolved administrations. That extends through the four overarching concordats and into the various bilateral concordats between the Assembly and individual departments.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is a doughty representative who can argue the case for Wales in Whitehall and Westminster. He works hard to provide Wales with its own voice around the Cabinet Table and, with his ministerial colleague, with a voice in over 20 of the Cabinet Committees. He ensures that Welsh interests are fully reflected in UK policy-making and that Westminster continues to be presented with the primary legislation that Wales needs.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, among others, raised the issue of the ability of Wales to take primary legislative responsibility. I agree that there is the important process of the Assembly developing its own abilities during this formative period. At the moment, the Government have no plans to give the Assembly the power to make its own primary legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, judgment on how well the Assembly is doing with its current powers may be the part of the process that will have to come first. We work together to ensure that Bills contain appropriate provision for Wales. For example, Jane Davidson said that the National Assembly can take great satisfaction in what appears on the face of the Education Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Griffiths, expressed concern that primary legislation passed at Westminster can reduce Assembly powers. I stress that the Government always consult the Assembly on proposals affecting Assembly powers and the Secretary of State takes its views extremely seriously.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon said in relation to primary legislation powers, there are permissive powers in the Education
1172
Bill, for example, which will allow the Assembly considerable flexibility in designing Welsh policy. It is important to see how that is put into practice.
I welcome the observation from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that the Assembly will review its procedures. We shall look with interest at its conclusions tomorrow.
The current devolution settlement is working well to provide the statutory framework for the Assembly to take forward its policies. There has been a large amount of legislation covering specifically Welsh needs, sometimes in Wales-only Bills but often incorporated into England and Wales Bills. For example, it is often possible to incorporate specific Welsh provision in the legislative programme more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case. I know that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, among others, fully appreciated the speed with which we responded to the request for a children's commissioner for Wales by adapting legislation in order to deal with the matter as quickly and effectively as possible.
Wales continues to benefit from significant growth in public expenditure, as does the rest of the UK. In the 2000 spending review alone it gained by almost £2 billion. The subsequent Budget and Pre-Budget Reports have brought further increases. The expertise and local knowledge of Assembly Members will be available to ensure that the deployment of those funds precisely matches Welsh needs. The Objective 1 programme is a significant success story here. I remember having to answer some critical questions in your Lordships' House, when some noble Lords were doubting Thomases and feared that the Government would never match the funding and secure the Objective 1 money for the people of the Principality. They were wrong. We did not let Wales down. The programme is progressing well and I look forward to seeing the recommendations that the Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs will make shortly.
Passing reference has been made to the Barnett formula. I remind the House that since its introduction it has been a good friend to Wales. Over the 20 years of its operation, the Principality has benefited from significantly more spending per capita on the Welsh block than for comparable services in England.
My noble friend Lord Morgan referred to the economy in Wales. The Government and the Assembly recognise the value of fostering entrepreneurship. In addition to the fiscal policy that the Government have put in place to help SM Es, the Assembly has developed its entrepreneurship action plan which will play its part in engendering an entrepreneurial culture in Wales. The Government and the Assembly recognise the situation of the people of Wales with regard to prosperity. That is why Wales achieved its Objective 1 programme. The Assembly has published its national economic development strategy, A Winning Wales, which acknowledges problems and proposes a strategic approach to tackle them.

1173
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, complimented the high-tech development that has taken place in Cardiff. We all want the Government and the Assembly to work together to make work pay and attract higher quality jobs. That extremely important point was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach and Lord Roberts of Conwy. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, it is extremely important that we work together. One good example of that is the Wales New Deal taskforce, which has played a key role in ensuring the success of programmes in Wales. The Employment Service and the Assembly have provided a joint secretariat to the taskforce. It has helped to streamline Assembly jobs for learning and skills with whole-country targets for getting people into jobs. Some 23,200 young Welsh people have secured jobs through the New Deal, 80 per cent of whom were still in work after 13 weeks. That is a good example of working together.
My noble friend Lord Brookman drew attention to the important work that the Assembly and the Government did together to assist and mitigate against the tragedy of the job losses at Corus. I am sure that, like me, he very much welcomes Corus' plan to spend £75 million rebuilding the No. 5 blast furnace at Port Talbot and recognises that that comes as a result of the tragedy there. In the package that was put together we have been able to demonstrate that economic regeneration in the interests of the people of Wales can come only when all parties work together. I recognise the importance of training and education in that context and the framework for setting up Education and Learning Wales, which the Assembly is using to transform post-16 education and lifelong learning in Wales. I am sure that everyone agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about the importance of not downplaying areas such as engineering in the development of education.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies made some serious points and detailed observations about the threat to Welsh as a community language. As he said, this is primarily a matter for the Assembly to tackle, but we take a great interest in it. I hope that the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is well founded in this case.
My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon and my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies referred to the review of the problem with regard to the Welsh language. The Assembly has a special role in promoting the Welsh language generally. I understand that its culture committee has decided on a review. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris made some pertinent points. He may wish to draw his views to the attention of those conducting the review.
My noble and learned friend also raised the question of town and country planning in Wales. That responsibility has been devolved to the Assembly, which is using its sustainable development scheme to guide planning policy and has established a planning forum, which has produced a comprehensive policy,
1174
delivering a presumption against out-of-town shopping centres, for example. However, that is a matter for the Assembly.
I note the views of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, on the policy of the Assembly on education in specialist schools. As he knows only too well, that is a devolved matter for the Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Morgan and the noble Lords, Lord Walker of Worcester and Lord Crickhowell, among others, asked about the Assembly committee's review of higher education. The committee has made various proposals, including, as noble Lords have said, proposals on the future of the University of Wales. Factually, the review does not represent the Assembly's final view, and there will be a consultation period. Some of the review's findings, for example on the future role of the University of Wales, have attracted wide interest. Achieving most of the proposals would be within the Assembly's powers.
I welcome the support of the noble Lords, Lord Morgan and Lord Carlile of Berriew, for the Assembly's initiatives on encouraging young people to stay on in school. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would not want me to be drawn any further into that matter.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, I should say that the major Welsh farming unions were represented on the Assembly's Farming Futures strategy group and fully endorsed the resulting document.
In reply to all noble Lords who raised the issue of the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, I should say that, following the foot and mouth outbreak, the Assembly has requested that further functions of animal health in Wales be transferred to it. The Government are considering the merits of the Assembly's request alongside other proposals emerging from foot and mouth inquiries. A decision will be made in due course. However, Farming Futures sets out the direction for agriculture in Wales. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, with details of the financial assistance being given to the rural community.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised the issue of energy policy. That is a reserved matter, although there is a national system of electricity generation. As he recognised, however, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel is having a debate in which it will be possible to answer his questions in greater detail.
I have the greatest sympathy for the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Carlile, on adolescent mental health problems. As he said, it is a matter devolved to the Assembly. I hope that the review will bear fruit for children in Wales who are in that most vulnerable position.
I must conclude because of time constraints. However, the Government's approach to the communications Bill will provide an opportunity for consultation with all interested parties. I am quite sure from his contribution, which was so knowledgeable, that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will wish to take part in that.

1175
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for selecting this topic for debate. With one exception, I have not been able to do full justice to the range, scope and depth of the debate, but I hope that your Lordships will accept that that is a matter for the usual channels. Nevertheless, this debate has been a pleasure which I hope will be repeated. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that the people of Wales should never settle for second best. I believe that the foundation on which they are now building is capable of giving them the best, which is what they deserve.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, it is my very great pleasure to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, which I believe has been very good-humoured. I also think, without prejudice, that it has been an affirmation of devolution. The contributions
1176
have shown a wealth of experience. We have heard from three former Secretaries of State, a Minister of State, a Presiding Officer of the National Assembly, a distinguished academic and vice-chancellor of the University of Wales and the general-secretary of an important trade union, as well as from many distinguished lawyers.
I particularly liked the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester. Despite the challenges, he struck a note of optimism that is based not on sentiment but on current events in Cardiff, which gives us great hope for the future.
It only remains for me to wish each of you a very happy St David's Day and to beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Passports: Entry Clearance
  Passports: Entry Clearance
  Over 30 Month Rule
  Over 30 Month Rule
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Work-Related Road Safety Task Group
  Work-Related Road Safety Task Group
  British Transport Police
  British Transport Police
  Transport Statistics
  Transport Statistics
  Morning-after Pill
  Morning-after Pill
  DCMS: Special Adviser for Hospitality
  DCMS: Special Adviser for Hospitality
  Golden Jubilee Celebrations
  Golden Jubilee Celebrations
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Referral of Bills
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Referral of Bills
  Affirmative Instruments
  Affirmative Instruments
  Negative Instruments
  Negative Instruments
  Occupational Road Risk: Government Departments
  Occupational Road Risk: Government Departments
  Scotland: Dental Sedation
  Scotland: Dental Sedation